Ground Balls Are Changing.
Major league batters are generally shifting towards a fly ball approach. The idea is to hit more balls in the air. Not necessarily fly balls, in fact there are those who wish to only hit line drives. When I say in the air, I mean ‘not on the ground.’ You want the ball to leave the infield before it bounces, ideally. Preferably this happens at a very high speed.
Duh, no kidding, right? Well, yeah. Obviously hitting the ball out of the infield is the goal for just about everyone. The goal isn’t the key, we’re talking about the approach used to actualize the goal.
There are two big schools of thought on this issue.
The ‘old school’ approach which stresses a level bat plane. Not level to the ground, level to the pitch. The idea here is to increase your chances at making solid contact, and allowing the hard contact to find a hole in the defense.
This approach makes sense. You hit the ball hardest when your bat is perfectly in line with the pitch. The ball and the bat meet head on and generate the most energetic collision that is possible given pitch speed, bat speed, etc. When your bat is in plane with the pitch, you hit the ball as hard as you possibly can. If you continually hit the ball this hard, you’ll probably get a few hits. And every so often you’ll be just a little under the ball, and hit a homer. And sometimes you’ll be just a little over it and hit a grounder.
The approach makes sense. You can see how the pieces fit together and the logic behind it.
The ‘new school’ approach stresses going out to meet the ball in front of the plate. It accepts that the bat path shouldn’t be a straight line, but rather more of a curve, like a swinging pendulum. It starts high, goes low, and then comes back up. You want to hit the ball when the swing path is going upwards, so you’re attacking the ball from the bottom. It takes time to get to that point in the swing, so in order to maximize the effect you attack pitches further in front of home plate, guaranteeing that you are hitting balls during the ideal part of your swing.
This ‘new school’ approach is getting more and more common, and I apologize if I am oversimplifying it. There are many reasons a player may be drawn to this approach, ranging from pitch selection to cuing. There are also reasons a player may not benefit from this approach, ranging from bat mechanics to cuing. Cuing is actually a really big deal.
Cuing refers to which words make you remember how to perform properly, which in turn depend upon how you internalize and understand the world around you. People with different understandings may find different cues useful and others confusing and vice versa.
Regardless of all of these schools of thought, batters appear to be hitting fewer ground balls. So, that’s great, right? Well, um, maybe not. The nature of ground balls are also changing somewhat dramatically. Look at this gif comparing the 2015 and 2017 seasons. The colors are wordy to explain, but simple to understand. Each row is a launch angle (2 degrees). For each row the highest frequency exit velocity (separated into 2 mph chunks) is dark green, and all of the other squares are based upon their percentile compared to that most frequent exit velocity.
In order words, if the largest square contains 400, then one that contains 200 would be 50% and one that contains 300 would be 75%. Makes sense, right? Pretty simple. Just remember that this is done row by row, so each launch angle is shaded independently.

Notice how the low launch angle balls are losing velocity and high launch angle balls are gaining. This is what you would expect from players trying to hit more fly balls. Trying to hit more fly balls doesn’t necessarily mean you hit fewer ground balls, rather your ground balls are significantly weaker. This is because the further the launch angle is from your swing plane, the lower the exit velocity.
Low launch angle ground balls are becoming less frequent. Amongst batters who played in each of 2015, 2016, and 2017, balls hit below 0 degrees have gone from 35.7% in 2015, to 34.7% in 2016 to 31.6% in 2017. A steady drop year to year. The exit velocities are even more staggering: 83.7 mph in 2015, 85.7 mph in 2016, and 78.4 mph in 2017.
The frequency of these weak batted balls is going down, but the exit velocity is going down even faster, and there is no reason to believe this trend will reverse course. The change from 2016 to 2017 was dramatic, to say the least, and I am not sure another change this dramatic could occur in 2018. However, maybe we will see only 30% of balls hit below 0 degrees. Perhaps these balls will have an EV of only 77 mph. I don’t know where these numbers might land, but the trend is clear.
What does this mean going forward? Well, if ground balls continue to lose value through a combination of weaker hits and better shifts then we may have to rethink where ground balls fit in the spectrum of batted balls. Prior to Statcast it was difficult to study and analyze balls hit between 0 and 15 degrees. You could call them line drives and quote line drive stats. There is far more you can learn from these balls, though.
Developing the knack for identifying and capitalizing on skill sets that promote these intermediate launch angles may become one of the most important skills for fantasy players. There are big name bats that take advantage of these trajectories: Freddie Freeman, Joey Votto, Corey Seager, Andrew McCutchen (the good version). There have also been lesser names who became stars after taking advantage of these trajectories. Guys like Justin Turner and Chris Taylor.
Rather than only looking at ground ball versus fly ball stats, you may want to start looking into these intermediate launch angles.
Andrew Perpetua is the creator of CitiFieldHR.com and xStats.org, and plays around with Statcast data for fun. Follow him on Twitter @AndrewPerpetua.
Wow top of the scale article. A lot of good writers here at fg but Andrew actually might be the best (at least as an analyst, as writers Travis and Jeff are of course top notch too – not saying andrew isn’t good in that regard:)).
Unfortunately that kind of basic research isn’t valued enough by lots of readers because there isn’t a flashy personal story behind it but it is very I important nonetheless
Thank you!
Btw I asked tango about the lowered exit velocity of the league and he believes that is the reason. Now all people agree in these days that a chop down swing is bad but to what degree is the question. Alan nathan wrote an article that for best contact like a 5-10 degree uppercut would be ideal but for power 15-20.
If more players go for the more extreme uppercut more bad contact might occur (both weak grounders and pop ups or weak high outfield flies) because the swing and pitch plane intersection gets smaller.
But that actually might be smart. We know there isn’t much of a bonus of avoiding bad contact. In fact balls under 80 mph are actually slightly more productive than balls between like 85 and 93 or so since there is a higher chance for an if hit or blooper.
That means that more important than avoiding soft contact is improving hard contact above 95 mph. Most production occurs on the 30% or so hard hit balls. In fact slightly improving your top 30% of batted balls actually might be worth losing some batted ball quality on the other 70%.
Also apart of the lesser plane matching with the pitch there is also a simple shift of exit velocity since exit velocity is highest when swing and launch angle match.you can elevate by undercutting the ball but hardest contact occurs if you hit a “knuckle balls” without creating extra spin.
That means a 5 degree uppercut would create maximum ev at 5 degree launch angle and a 20 degrees uppercut at 20 degrees launch angle. That will also decrease grounder exit velocity but this isn’t such a bad thing because the higher fly balls get more productive.
And while harder hit grounders are a lot more productive than weak grounders the launch angles above 18 degrees or so are most sensitive to exit velocity since almost all production on those launch angles are via home runs.I did some research in the community section on that but won’t post the link because some readers here feel offended by me posting that stuff:)
I think you’re right that league-wide drop in EV is due to more uppercut swings, but it’s not just because of more bad contact. From that Alan Nathan article, the maximum possible EV is when the descent angle = attack angle = launch angle. The descent angle for a fastball is ~6 degrees and for a curveball it’s ~10 degrees. The further the a batter’s attack angle is from the the descent angle (as is the case for uppercuts), the lower the maximum EV when the attack angle = launch angle. If you plot LA vs EV for all BBE, there’s a peak at about 7 degrees, which is probably the average descent angle (it’s still a fastball dominated league so it should be closer to 6 than 10). We see a peak at 7 degrees because that is where the average descent angle = attack angle = launch angle.
To a lesser extent, the larger the uppercut, the slower the bat speed (and slower EV), because the downward force of gravity is opposing the upward swing. Theoretically, you can get the fastest bat speed from a downward chop, because the swing is assisted by gravity.
I have no idea how important each of those factors is to reducing the league average EV, but as more players adopt an uppercut swing I would expect the average EV to drop a bit further.
I don’t have direct sources on this, but I have been told the bat accelerates throughout the entire swing up until the wrists break and roll over. With one exception, pretty much all batters stop swinging a split second prior to contact.
I believe stopping the swing before contact is an evolutionary adaptation, which stems from evolving to fight with spears (which is also why we have a shoulder shaped the way we do as opposed to a chimp, which is a big deal). When you are fighting, you always want your weapon to stop between you and the enemy. So it would make sense to develop an instinct to stop a swing prior to contact, in order to make it more likely that the weapon will stop moving as opposed to over swinging.
Anyways, exit velocity falls pretty linearly with distance in front of the plate. You can see it here https://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/extrapolating-contact-point/
Interesting. I never thought about how shoulders evolved, but it makes perfect sense. To support your point, it’s been shown that the grip on the bat doesn’t actually matter at the point of contact. A batter could let go just before impact and still hit a home run.
http://baseball.physics.illinois.edu/grip.html
Would this dramatic decrease in GB EV have an effect on infield defense? I know that’s not really a Rotographs thing, but this might be part of why so many teams are playing infielders at positions you wouldn’t expect. For example, St. Louis started DeJong at SS all year, even though he never played much SS in the minors. Fantasy-wise, maybe we’ll start seeing guys like DeJong stick at tough positions for longer than normal, meaning they’ll keep tough positional eligibility for longer.
That could be. With fewer hard hit grounders and more sharp line drives, maybe defense will rely more on positioning and less on lateral range. Kinda like turning everyone into a third basemen.
I do think that plays a role and with fewer bip, fewer grounders and also weaker grounders the importance of if defense decreases.
However I would be careful to not overrate those things. Those things change very gradually. Even the “home run explosion” is only like one additional Homer by both teams combined every other game. That is a huge change in percentage but it is not like there are now like 6 bombs a game, the viewing experience is still rather similar.
Same goes for the Kids surge, still most outs are made in play.
The game is changing but it happens gradually only by a couple of percentage points per decade.
Your use of ‘old school’ and ‘new school’ speaks to your lack of understanding of the topic of hitting. Everyone has always wanted to hit the ball out front and everyone understands that every swing has an arc. You make it sound like everyone over 30 just had no understanding of swinging a bat. The reality is that until Statcast came along, outsiders had little understanding of hitting and now they have more.
As to the actual content of the article. My question is, how much of the flyball revolution is just juiced balls? Is this really some evolution or simply a reaction to a different environment?
Cueing, as you put it, is a big deal. Can you elaborate?
I will be interested in how offenses adjust to the shifts employed around MLB, and the impact on ground ball rates.
(This is a long response, sorry)
There is an article I really wanted to link to for this but after spending almost an hour looking for them I couldn’t find it. Maybe if I talk about them you’ll remember them or someone else will.
—
Essentially, it took two players who had similar overall production (I can’t remember the players, which is probably a big reason I can’t find the article). I think one of them had 56 extra base hits and the other 57. And one had like 30 homers and the other had like 27. Something like that.
Then it had interviews with each player. Where one of them talked about how he was really trying to lift the ball, I think he referenced Justin Turner, and I think there was a gif of Justin Turner warming up for a plate appearance where he really has this huge exaggerated upwards swing. As if to say “I only want to hit fly balls.”
After that there was an interview with the other player, who spends all of his mental effort focusing on swinging down on the ball. In his mind he focuses on hitting line drives, and when he gets into a slump he goes back to working on hitting balls up the middle. His warmup prior to at bats is an exaggerated wood chopping motion, really stressing swinging down on the ball.
They both have opposite ways of approaching the game, but they had the same production. Roughly the same number of extra base hits, doubles, homers, etc.
—
Anyways, I really wanted to link to that piece, but honestly I cannot remember who wrote it and I couldn’t find it. It was really frustrating to be honest.
Cuing is a manifestation of how you view the world, and it probably has a lot to do with how you were taught, how you internalized and learned from those lessons, and what problems you may have encountered along the way. As a result, it plays a really big role in communication.
I have an example. I never played baseball at an elite level, but I used to do some historical fencing. I had a coach who was teaching me how to fence with a sword and buckler. He used to always tell me “crows beak.” Which meant literally nothing to me. It probably means nothing to you. Just imagine a guy occasionally yelling that at you while you are practicing. “CROWS BEAK!”
He never explained what it meant when he said it. Even when I asked. I would tell him, what does that mean? And he’d say “its.. its.. you hit the thumb like this, its a crows beak.” Yeah, so a crows beak is a crows beak, got it. The only piece of information I got from this was that it has something to do with thumbs.
After that, when he said crows beak, I would try to slap the other persons thumb with my sword. Then he’d say “no no no, crows beak.”
Fast forward about 8 years. Just a few days ago I was talking to another fencer, and he was telling me about how when a person gets very close to you, as in within grappling range, it is very difficult to parry their sword with your sword. He told me that instead of trying to parry their sword, you would avoid their sword and only attack their sword hand.
Which is when it clicked in my head. THAT IS A CROWS BEAK. The coach had been telling me that I was letting my opponent get too close to me. When he said “crows beak” he wanted me to attack their hand while stepping to the left or right to gain distance. He called it a crows beak because the tip of the sword is shaped like a beak. So to him, when he said that it was obvious that I was supposed to only attack with the last 1-2 inches of my sword. Whereas to me, it was totally baffling because I had no idea what was going on.
This is an example of cuing gone wrong.
I think the second player you reference is Gregory Polanco, if I remember the interview correctly. He was quoted as saying his swing approach was to hit “low line drives”; not that that was the outcome he wanted necessarily, but as you suggest, that was the cue he found that produced the swing path he was looking for.