TarponChaser said:

---

No, I'm saying how do we know what balls were hard hit or not before the StatCast era when every exit velo is tracked.

---

So I'm just making sure I'm understanding, you do or do not believe hard hit balls are more likely to be hits?

I've got to think that harder hit balls are more likely to be hits....when they're hit.....but swinging to generate harder hit balls causes more swing and misses and/or more nubs and weak pop-ups

AgRyan04 said:

---

I've got to think that harder hit balls are more likely to be hits....when they're hit.....but swinging to generate harder hit balls causes more swing and misses and/or more nubs and weak pop-ups

---

Swings and misses, yes. Not sure the latter is all that significant.

When you make contact, yes you are more likely to get a hit. There is a trade off though. Swinging harder naturally leads to more swings and misses. That's where the question comes. When you multiple everything by thousands of ABs across a season, is it actually proving to be a better strategy?

Guys today are hitting more home runs, implying they are hitting the ball harder. However, they are also getting on base less, and striking out more. Twenty years ago, the league was scoring basically the same number of runs as they do today. My contention is that all of these analytics really haven't made much of change in total run production. It's just an different strategy, but it's not actually better (or worse).

Baseball is still a zero sum game when it comes to pitching vs batting.

The counterfactual could be: what would scoring like if pitching had advanced in the past twenty years but hitting was still stuck in the past?

I think if you want to see more variety and fewer homers then there need to be changes on the mound (I've heard calls for lowering it slightly or moving it back a bit so that hitters have that instant more time to adjust to speed/break). With pitchers throwing max effort 100% of the time, the idea is that if you aren't swinging max effort/going for homers that scoring would be worse. Why do you think MLB experiments with the baseball properties every other year? They are trying to find a new balance/break even point, because pitchers are advancing their craft faster than hitters (which will almost always be the case -- hitting is reactive).

The 2014-2015 Royals are basically your examples.

High average, great baserunning, little power (though they didn't walk much either).

2 WS appearances, 1 title... So that method worked, but...

it required one of the greatest defenses of the modern era AND one of the greatest bullpens of the modern era.


So sure, hitting for average and putting the ball in play over hitting for power can be effective.

But you need to pair with elite speed, elite defense and an elite bullpen.

I'd say that's a much tougher team to build.

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

No, I'm saying how do we know what balls were hard hit or not before the StatCast era when every exit velo is tracked.

---

So I'm just making sure I'm understanding, you do or do not believe hard hit balls are more likely to be hits?

---

Not sure if you're being obtuse or not but the point isn't whether or not hard hit balls are better as a rule but that it's selling out for the hard contact is better that putting thr ball in play.

For example- is it better to go 1-4 with 3 Ks and a solo shot or is it better to go 3-4 with 3 singles and score 3 runs?

AgRyan04 said:

---

I've got to think that harder hit balls are more likely to be hits....when they're hit.....but swinging to generate harder hit balls causes more swing and misses and/or more nubs and weak pop-ups

---

This.

TarponChaser said:

---

Proposition Joe said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

No, I'm saying how do we know what balls were hard hit or not before the StatCast era when every exit velo is tracked.

---

So I'm just making sure I'm understanding, you do or do not believe hard hit balls are more likely to be hits?

---

Not sure if you're being obtuse or not but the point isn't whether or not hard hit balls are better as a rule but that it's selling out for the hard contact is better that putting thr ball in play.

For example- is it better to go 1-4 with 3 Ks and a solo shot or is it better to go 3-4 with 3 singles and score 3 runs?

---

Couldn't you also make the case that by asking a player to change his approach you are effectively taking away from what they are best at?

Muscle memory of a certain swing, but then with 2 strikes change that to a completely different swing?

But even ignoring all of that, I think the easy example is Ichiro 2001-2010. That's your ceiling.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Couldn't you also make the case that by asking a player to change his approach you are effectively taking away from what they are best at?

---

I definitely agree that you can't ask the current group of hitters to change their approach without going through a drastic downturn for a period of time. Hitters are now learning this stuff in youth baseball. Look at how bad guys are at bunting now days. It would take a decade or more for the entire sport to flip back to contact hitting.

First, I don't think it's that big of a physical change. It's a mental thing.

Second, Ichiro was a .331 hitter and scored over 100 runs a season in that era so that's pretty damn strong. And it's well known that he could have hit for more power but that wasn't what was asked of him.

One assumption I'm not sure I necessarily agree with is this idea that players are going up there wildly swinging for the fences by "swinging hard" and that this is any different than the past. Sure in a 3-0 or 3-1 count you might see a guy sell out for a fastball trying to do damage. But I think pretty much everyone is just trying to put a barrel on the ball with most swings.

Like 90% of the league has a swing speed between 70 and 76 mph.

I think if we had the data from the past it wouldn't look that drastically different. I think Cecil Fielder, Rob Deer, Mo Vaughn, etc. all would have had similar swing speeds. The difference is that everyone rostered a couple of light hitting speedsters in the past. Those guys likely did swing softer.

One big difference in the optimization of pitching that affects how hitters look is the fact that there are no longer "fastball" counts. Pitchers will keep nibbling, and if you guess wrong expecting a heater you will either miss-hit or whiff most of the time. Hitters saw a much higher percentage of fastballs in the past, and K rate/chase rates reflect that.

linkdude said:

---

One big difference in the optimization of pitching that affects how hitters look is the fact that there are no longer "fastball" counts. Pitchers will keep nibbling, and if you guess wrong expecting a heater you will either mi**** or whiff most of the time. Hitters saw a much higher percentage of fastballs in the past, and K rate/chase rates reflect that.

---

Did they see a higher percentage of fastballs in the past? Do we have the actual data of this or just your supposition??

I'd think they threw a lot less fastballs and a lot more focused on breaking balls and changing speeds. Especially when the strike zones were notoriously larger so you could almost force guys to chase a breaking ball off the plate.

These days it's not so much "fastball counts" because regardless of count lots of pitchers will just expect to blow 98 past hitters. Especially when you see guys throwing 98mph sinkers.

Velo helps cover up mistakes. I do think pitchers these days do consistently throw harder than they used to. Not 5-7mph like some claim but 3-4mph maybe due to the way velo is clocked and the max effort on every pitch these days.

Yet, even with that I think movement matters more than velo- a hitter would much rather hit against a flat 98 than they would Cristian Javier's 94 with serious life.

These two articles go back to 2002 (https://www.rotowire.com/baseball/article/mlb-pitch-speed-and-usage-2002-to-2025-94262) and 2008 (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-league-wide-update-on-pitch-mix/).

There is a 17-point drop in fastball rate from 2002-2025 (64.4 > 47.9) with most of that difference being made up in slider usage. In general the rate has continued to decrease yearly (although we might be seeing a plateau right around the 47/48% mark), also the fastballs being thrown are different. In the aggregate, more four-seamers are being thrown and fewer sinker/two-seamers, although as we have seen with Hunter Brown mixing that up can still be very beneficial.

linkdude said:

---

These two articles go back to 2002 (https://www.rotowire.com/baseball/article/mlb-pitch-speed-and-usage-2002-to-2025-94262) and 2008 (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-league-wide-update-on-pitch-mix/).

There is a 17-point drop in fastball rate from 2002-2025 (64.4 > 47.9) with most of that difference being made up in slider usage. In general the rate has continued to decrease yearly (although we might be seeing a plateau right around the 47/48% mark), also the fastballs being thrown are different. In the aggregate, more four-seamers are being thrown and fewer sinker/two-seamers, although as we have seen with Hunter Brown mixing that up can still be very beneficial.

---

Thanks, hadn't seen that.

As for fastball usage, Cam Schlittler has shown how a fastball-heavy repetoire can work well, especially when they're 3 different fastballs/shapes- 4-seam, sinker, and cutter.

Why Cam Schlittler's 3 Variations of Fastballs are a problem for hitters.

99 mph Sinker
96 mph Cutter
98 mph Elevated Four Seam Fastball

Individual Pitches + Overlay pic.twitter.com/1JyAs2dJjk

— Rob Friedman (@PitchingNinja) March 28, 2026

TarponChaser said:

---

linkdude said:

---

One big difference in the optimization of pitching that affects how hitters look is the fact that there are no longer "fastball" counts. Pitchers will keep nibbling, and if you guess wrong expecting a heater you will either mi**** or whiff most of the time. Hitters saw a much higher percentage of fastballs in the past, and K rate/chase rates reflect that.

---

Did they see a higher percentage of fastballs in the past? Do we have the actual data of this or just your supposition??

---

I don't have the data, but I saw a YouTube video the other day that was making the argument that guys aren't throwing harder today, they are just throwing their hardest more often. In the past, when pitchers were expected to go through the order at least 3 times, they had to keep something in the tank, so they would pace themselves. That's not the philosophy anymore. Now they go all in from the first pitch and get replaced at the first sign of velo drop. Then you get 4 guys in the pen who all go 100%. The top speeds haven't really changed much (there are of course exceptions), but the bottom speeds have come way up, increasing the overall average. There are also more guys who can throw upper 90s. There's still the unicorns that are now hitting 104-105, but overall, the best fastball a guy has isn't faster than they were back in the early 2000s, they just throw that pitch every time now.

Lets add some data to the thread.

Avg Velo and Pitch Type Changes from Early 00s.

Quote:

---

The progress of fastball velocity seems never-ending. Measured on the same exact scale at pitch release out of the hand, the average fastball in 2008, two years after Salmon retired, was 91.4 mph. This year, it's 94.3 mph (or 94.6 for four-seam fastballs). In 2008, 63.3% of all MLB fastballs were thrown 92 mph or softer. This year, only 20.5% of fastballs are 92 mph or below.

In less than a month of the 2026 season, starting pitchers have already thrown more 100 mph fastballs than in any full season from 20082013. Last year alone produced more 101+ mph fastballs than the five seasons from 20082012 combined.

Yes, the way we measure pitching velocity has changed and improved, but not nearly as much as is often described. It's a rounding error in comparison to the increases in actual pitching velocity.

---

Velo up even with the gun change.

Alec Burleson is actually a very interesting example for this subject:

He has 104 RBI this year... He's hitting 7pts LOWER than he did last year where with a similar # of ABs he'd have 76 RBI. So hitting the ball less but being significantly MORE productive... Why? Because the production associated with light-hitting for average requires runners to be in scoring position when you come up to bat - which is ultimately random.

So yeah you may prefer Alec Burleson up with a RISP needing 1 run. But that's a small % of your team's at-bats and ultimately can't be predicted.

Whereas your Kyle Schwarber is going mash and produce no matter the situation.

THAT'S why analytics likes Schwarber more.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Alec Burleson is actually a very interesting example for this subject:

He has 104 RBI this year... He's hitting 7pts LOWER than he did last year where with a similar # of ABs he'd have 76 RBI. So hitting the ball less but being significantly MORE productive... Why? Because the production associated with light-hitting for average requires runners to be in scoring position when you come up to bat - which is ultimately random.

So yeah you may prefer Alec Burleson up with a RISP needing 1 run. But that's a small % of your team's at-bats and ultimately can't be predicted.

Whereas your Kyle Schwarber is going mash and produce no matter the situation.

THAT'S why analytics likes Schwarber more.

---

I was thinking about making a Burleson post. But from a very different angle.

Burleson is a perfect example of moving towards swinging harder, increasing the attack angle (uppercut), and sacrificing contact (= more strikeouts) to ultimately be more productive.

2024 Burleson

• 71.2 Avg Bat Speed
• 18.0% Fast Swing Rate (>75 MPH)
• 10-degree Attack Angle
• 12.8% K%
• 89.7 Exit Velo
• 5.9% Barrel%
• .319 wOBA
• .333 xwOBA
• 106 wRC+

2026 Burleson

• 73.6 Avg Bat Speed
• 36.5% Fast Swing Rate (>75 MPH)
• 14-degree Attack Angle
• 17.2% K%
• 82.0 Exit Velo
• 11.1% Barrel%
• .351wOBA
• .374xwOBA
• 124 wRC+

By Burleson becoming better at the things "analytics" says are important, he's gone from a league-average type player to top 20-40 hitter.

I wonder how much of Burleson's change is him just getting so many more reps at the big league level and learning what he does well based on feedback from coaches and tracking data available to him.

Obviously 2024 Burleson could swing the bat over 75 MPH, he just did it rarely. But if the data told him those were his best and most productive swings, it'd make sense for him to try and replicate that more often. So in my mind, it's not that Burleson is "swinging harder" in 2026, it's just that he's more consistently using his best swing which is a 75 MPH+ swing and consequently doing more damage.

He's a good test case for analytics because his extremely low K rate indicates his elite bat to ball skills, so now the trick is figuring out how to unlock more power/slug from that tool set without erring too far in the wrong direction and turning him into a 3 true outcomes player. I'd say this year is a good example of how a player can maximize what he can be by learning from the data.

Also, nostalgia aside, everyone on this thread would hate it if their entire team was made up of Juan Pierre, Luis Arraez and Steven Kwan.

It's a pain in the ass to string together 3 singles just to get one run in and you absolutely need guys hitting doubles and homers to score runs.

AggieEP said:

---

Also, nostalgia aside, everyone on this thread would hate it if their entire team was made up of Juan Pierre, Luis Arraez and Steven Kwan.

It's a pain in the ass to string together 3 singles just to get one run in and you absolutely need guys hitting doubles and homers to score runs.

---

I think people are just pining for ONE guy like that on each team, rather than one per league!

AgRyan04 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Also, nostalgia aside, everyone on this thread would hate it if their entire team was made up of Juan Pierre, Luis Arraez and Steven Kwan.

It's a pain in the ass to string together 3 singles just to get one run in and you absolutely need guys hitting doubles and homers to score runs.

---

I think people are just pining for ONE guy like that on each team, rather than one per league!

---

Chandler Simpson is batting .305 with 41 stolen bases, and yet no one cares because we all got smarter and realized that it's valuable, but it's not that valuable. He's a below-average hitter.

AggieEP said:

---

Also, nostalgia aside, everyone on this thread would hate it if their entire team was made up of Juan Pierre, Luis Arraez and Steven Kwan.

It's a pain in the ass to string together 3 singles just to get one run in and you absolutely need guys hitting doubles and homers to score runs.

---

Not really.

MLB average runs per team per game was 4.21 in 1975 and was 4.26 in 2025. That's statistically negligible. In 1995 it was 4.85, the high point of the last 50 years.

Farmer1906 said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Also, nostalgia aside, everyone on this thread would hate it if their entire team was made up of Juan Pierre, Luis Arraez and Steven Kwan.

It's a pain in the ass to string together 3 singles just to get one run in and you absolutely need guys hitting doubles and homers to score runs.

---

I think people are just pining for ONE guy like that on each team, rather than one per league!

---

Chandler Simpson is batting .305 with 41 stolen bases, and yet no one cares because we all got smarter and realized that it's valuable, but it's not that valuable. He's a below-average hitter.

---

Simpson needs better plate discipline. He doesn't walk enough because hitting over .300 is elite but his OBP is 40 points lower than somebody like Randy Arozarena.

If Simpson walks more and gets that OBP up around .380 instead of .333 like it is now combined with his base stealing and he's a premier leadoff guy.

But nobody hitting over .300 can ever be considered "below average."

Walk rates are up across the league right now between pitcher control issues and, probably more importantly, unintended consequences of ABS as guys don't chase on the edges as much.

I still think the next adjustment is to take a more hybrid approach to roster/lineup construction due to scarcity. There is no doubt that Schwarber is a more impactful hitter than Burleson. But you can't get 9 Schwarbers (unless you are the Dodgers).

We have remade the logic of the tops of batting orders using analytics. This is smart with the best hitters. Keep hitting the top guys 2 and 4 with an OBP guy 1 with no concern for his speed. Teams run less at the top of the order because they are risk adverse to basepath outs with their best hitters at the plate. There is no need for the "fast guy" at the top of the order anymore. A slow guy like Paredes can be a fantastic leadoff hitter.

But as you run into the lower part of the lineup, can you go back to an old school approach? Can you find guys that may lack pop, but can take some pitches, steal bases, and bunt? We have seen how the Astros have been destroyed by 9 hitters this year. In my experience, the best offenses set up the top of the order with rallies from the bottom.

But this doesn't just have to be generic pressure from the bottom. Your bottom of the order may not be able to frequently put up crooked numbers, but can they small ball a run or get a runner in scoring position for the top of the order?

I obviously don't have the numbers for this, but it feel like this is a spot where inexpensive players could be found for the bottom of the lineup that may lack the flashy tools but can execute small ball rallies while the top half of the lineup analytically plays for crooked numbers.

time for a Burleson update...

110 RBI on just 22 homers

remarkable for 2026

currently hitting .365 w/RISP

TarponChaser said:

---

Farmer1906 said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Also, nostalgia aside, everyone on this thread would hate it if their entire team was made up of Juan Pierre, Luis Arraez and Steven Kwan.

It's a pain in the ass to string together 3 singles just to get one run in and you absolutely need guys hitting doubles and homers to score runs.

---

I think people are just pining for ONE guy like that on each team, rather than one per league!

---

Chandler Simpson is batting .305 with 41 stolen bases, and yet no one cares because we all got smarter and realized that it's valuable, but it's not that valuable. He's a below-average hitter.

---

Simpson needs better plate discipline. He doesn't walk enough because hitting over .300 is elite but his OBP is 40 points lower than somebody like Randy Arozarena.

If Simpson walks more and gets that OBP up around .380 instead of .333 like it is now combined with his base stealing and he's a premier leadoff guy.

But nobody hitting over .300 can ever be considered "below average."

---

I don't make the rules. He's 8% below league average in wRC+.

But it can be even simpler.
League Avg OBP vs Simpson: .319 vs .333
League Avg SLG vs Simpson: .401 vs .353
League Avg OPS vs Simpson: .720 vs .687

And of those OPS the only one which actually shows what he's doing as a hitter. As I said, he needs to improve his plate discipline to get his OBP up but if you're getting a hit 30% or more of your ABs you cannot be considered a below average hitter.

That's different from his overall offensive contribution in terms of runs scored/batted in.

Based on what I've seen of him and looking at his stats, if he gets more selective at the plate to get his OBP up he'll probably see his BA increase too because he'll force pitchers to come in the zone more often.

His chase rate is well above the league average but his whiff rate is elite. Bringing the 2 closer together will be a huge step in his development.

I am not really sure what you're getting at. His production at the plate is below league average. It's not an opinion.

It depends on your definition of good hitter.

Someone who hits the ball a lot, or someone who has very productive hits.

Analytics throws some people for loop because it changes what they've long believed to be the most valuable things to do to win games.

It is not just batting average that is an incomplete stat, but RBI and R are as well. All of those are partial indicators, which is what old school analysis looked at and drew conclusions off of. Analytic try to look at complete picture of offensive contribution, independent of teammates. RBI reflect the guys in front of you getting on base. R reflect guys behind you driving you in. Average indicates how often balls in play are turned into hits, but is blind to hit quality and how what you do when you don't put the ball in play.

Here is a comp:
Chandler Simpson
Slash lines: .305 AVG/.333 OBP/.353 SLG/.687 OPS
162 hits in 532 AB
188 Total Bases

Isaac Paredes
Slash lines: .260 AVG/.359 OBP/.435 SLG/.795 OPS
135 hits in 519 AB
226 Total Bases

I intentionally chose Paredes as a comp because he is a good hitter who is not an All-Star masher like a Yordan, Caminero, or a team's typical 2/3 hitter.

Chandler's average makes him look much better, but he only has 27 more hits than Isaac. With 12 games to play (I am going by team games played instead of individual here), Simpson gets 1.08 hits per game, while Isaac gets 0.9. Over the course of the season, Simpson gets one extra hit per week compared to Paredes.

On the flip side, Isaac has generated 38 more bases than Simpson. This is because he walks more (when not swinging the bat) and has better quality hits (SLG). This means he is on base more often to potentially be driven in and does more to drive in runners than Simpson. Now Simpson does add value with his SB, but each CS (14) offsets each SB (41) by MORE than 1 because an out on the base paths hurts more than a gained base adds.

The difference is actually bigger than it looks: the biggest flaw of OPS is that it double counts times on base. But that means it actually overrates singles/walks guys compared to sluggers. This is why wOBA is becoming more popular.

At the end of the day, Simpson is a good young player, but his WAR is defensive aided. He is a slightly below average offensive player despite hitting .300. Isaac is a high quality offensive player despite "only" hitting .260.

SpaceCityAg05 said:

---

It is not just batting average that is an incomplete stat, but RBI and R are as well. All of those are partial indicators, which is what old school analysis looked at and drew conclusions off of. Analytic try to look at complete picture of offensive contribution, independent of teammates. RBI reflect the guys in front of you getting on base. R reflect guys behind you driving you in. Average indicates how often balls in play are turned into hits, but is blind to hit quality and how what you do when you don't put the ball in play.

Here is a comp:
Chandler Simpson
Slash lines: .305 AVG/.333 OBP/.353 SLG/.687 OPS
162 hits in 532 AB
188 Total Bases

Isaac Paredes
Slash lines: .260 AVG/.359 OBP/.435 SLG/.795 OPS
135 hits in 519 AB
226 Total Bases

I intentionally chose Paredes as a comp because he is a good hitter who is not an All-Star masher like a Yordan, Caminero, or a team's typical 2/3 hitter.

Chandler's average makes him look much better, but he only has 27 more hits than Isaac. With 12 games to play (I am going by team games played instead of individual here), Simpson gets 1.08 hits per game, while Isaac gets 0.9. Over the course of the season, Simpson gets one extra hit per week compared to Paredes.

On the flip side, Isaac has generated 38 more bases than Simpson. This is because he walks more (when not swinging the bat) and has better quality hits (SLG). This means he is on base more often to potentially be driven in and does more to drive in runners than Simpson. Now Simpson does add value with his SB, but each CS (14) offsets each SB (41) by MORE than 1 because an out on the base paths hurts more than a gained base adds.

The difference is actually bigger than it looks: the biggest flaw of OPS is that it double counts times on base. But that means it actually overrates singles/walks guys compared to sluggers. This is why wOBA is becoming more popular.

At the end of the day, Simpson is a good young player, but his WAR is defensive aided. He is a slightly below average offensive player despite hitting .300. Isaac is a high quality offensive player despite "only" hitting .260.

---

That's exactly why I've said that Simpson needs to get his OBP up- singles are valued more than walks, or should be, because of their ability to produce more RBIs and so forth but Simpson's role is a place setter and disruption on the basepaths which is why he needs to take more pitches and walk more.

And the entire idea is that analytics massively undervalue the ability to manufacture runs.

What I'm saying is that his stats show elite bat-to-ball skills but even hitting .305 he still swings at too many pitches he shouldn't and so his OBP is relatively low. He needs to be more disciplined and he becomes a Kenny Lofton- a career .299 hitter with a .372 OBP who plays borderline elite defense. Both used elite speed and instincts to track down balls in the OF but that's offset by average arms.

Get Simpson's OBP up on level with Lofton and he's a .725 OPS guy who will get you a lot of runs and save you runs with his speed.

TarponChaser said:

---

SpaceCityAg05 said:

---

It is not just batting average that is an incomplete stat, but RBI and R are as well. All of those are partial indicators, which is what old school analysis looked at and drew conclusions off of. Analytic try to look at complete picture of offensive contribution, independent of teammates. RBI reflect the guys in front of you getting on base. R reflect guys behind you driving you in. Average indicates how often balls in play are turned into hits, but is blind to hit quality and how what you do when you don't put the ball in play.

Here is a comp:
Chandler Simpson
Slash lines: .305 AVG/.333 OBP/.353 SLG/.687 OPS
162 hits in 532 AB
188 Total Bases

Isaac Paredes
Slash lines: .260 AVG/.359 OBP/.435 SLG/.795 OPS
135 hits in 519 AB
226 Total Bases

I intentionally chose Paredes as a comp because he is a good hitter who is not an All-Star masher like a Yordan, Caminero, or a team's typical 2/3 hitter.

Chandler's average makes him look much better, but he only has 27 more hits than Isaac. With 12 games to play (I am going by team games played instead of individual here), Simpson gets 1.08 hits per game, while Isaac gets 0.9. Over the course of the season, Simpson gets one extra hit per week compared to Paredes.

On the flip side, Isaac has generated 38 more bases than Simpson. This is because he walks more (when not swinging the bat) and has better quality hits (SLG). This means he is on base more often to potentially be driven in and does more to drive in runners than Simpson. Now Simpson does add value with his SB, but each CS (14) offsets each SB (41) by MORE than 1 because an out on the base paths hurts more than a gained base adds.

The difference is actually bigger than it looks: the biggest flaw of OPS is that it double counts times on base. But that means it actually overrates singles/walks guys compared to sluggers. This is why wOBA is becoming more popular.

At the end of the day, Simpson is a good young player, but his WAR is defensive aided. He is a slightly below average offensive player despite hitting .300. Isaac is a high quality offensive player despite "only" hitting .260.

---

And the entire idea is that analytics massively undervalue the ability to manufacture runs.

---

In what way?