Maybe my math is showing here, but I don't think that makes any sense at all. If homerun power is literally surmised of HR/FB% then a lower flyball ratio would only speak higher of his actual power potential. IE Lars had 9 homers this season, lets just factor that with the .46 and you get 19.46. Lets say he boosted it up to 56% just for the purpose of this post. Now his power rating based on that formula would be about 16.07. After reading the article, what the author is really trying to say is that despite very good potential for power, it's pretty hard to roll the ball over the fence. I think to say that his swing has suffered makes little or no sense when not comparing progression.
The line-drive rate is what actually needs to increase the most. The author sites Lars' LD% as 13%. Very low, especially for someone who you would like to project for power in the majors. Does that mean I'm going to "jump on the rizzo band wagon?" Well, as much as I like Rizzo, I'm not ready to crown him the king of the Sox prospect 1b's quite yet. The fact of the matter is that despite some of these shortcomings, Lars is still only 22 and minor changes to his swing could very well fix the issue. If you think about the fact that an increase of 1 in 10 more balls hit in play in the air would raise his % to what people would consider at least normal an increase of line-drives of about 1 in 20 at bats then this really is something that is being blown out of proportion, especially considering the age, level of development and sample size. Considering Anderson's advanced plate approach I still like him as a prospect. I'm speaking speculatively here, but based on how much repeated practice a pro baseball player gets swinging a bat, compared to actual plate appearances, I'd much rather have a prospect who has a few holes in his swing to work on than a guy who can't walk to save his life. Lets give Lars another season to see if he can right the ship. And yes, in the meantime, Go Rizzo!

Yirmiyahu wrote:

---

nateg26 wrote:

---

Maybe my math is showing here, but I don't think that makes any sense at all. If homerun power is literally surmised of HR/FB% then a lower flyball ratio would only speak higher of his actual power potential. IE Lars had 9 homers this season, lets just factor that with the .46 and you get 19.46. Lets say he boosted it up to 56% just for the purpose of this post. Now his power rating based on that formula would be about 16.07. After reading the article, what the author is really trying to say is that despite very good potential for power, it's pretty hard to roll the ball over the fence. I think to say that his swing has suffered makes little or no sense when not comparing progression.
The line-drive rate is what actually needs to increase the most. The author sites Lars' LD% as 13%. Very low, especially for someone who you would like to project for power in the majors. Does that mean I'm going to "jump on the rizzo band wagon?" Well, as much as I like Rizzo, I'm not ready to crown him the king of the Sox prospect 1b's quite yet. The fact of the matter is that despite some of these shortcomings, Lars is still only 22 and minor changes to his swing could very well fix the issue. If you think about the fact that an increase of 1 in 10 more balls hit in play in the air would raise his % to what people would consider at least normal an increase of line-drives of about 1 in 20 at bats then this really is something that is being blown out of proportion, especially considering the age, level of development and sample size. Considering Anderson's advanced plate approach I still like him as a prospect. I'm speaking speculatively here, but based on how much repeated practice a pro baseball player gets swinging a bat, compared to actual plate appearances, I'd much rather have a prospect who has a few holes in his swing to work on than a guy who can't walk to save his life. Lets give Lars another season to see if he can right the ship. And yes, in the meantime, Go Rizzo!

As far as the math: when the author said "home run power is a factor of HR/FB%", I think he simply meant that HR/FB is one of the factors of home-run hitting. That is, if a large % of your fly-balls become home runs, you're more likely to hit home runs. The other factor, of course, would be a high FB%.

41.3%. That is Lars' flyball percentage. It's also about 2% higher than Manny Ramirez's career FB%. Judging from Manny's stats (he has a few career dingers) I was most likely right when i said line drive percentage is a lot more telling than FB%. See also Pujols' career FB% of 39.7, Adrian Gonzalezes FB% = 38.7, Arod's FB% = 40%, Ryan Howard's FB% = 38%. Get the picture? The author basically summed up the real issue of why Anderson struggled this year quite handily- "Anderson dismal 13% LD% actually says his BABIP was still above expected." but then for some reason decided that he would try to explain THAT with the swing mechanics theory. This is all well and good, if he was comparing his last season's batted ball stats to this season's. However, all Patterson did was speculate that his high career groundball compared to flyball rate was to blame. Then he opposed his own point by giving us two examples of rising stars with low flyball #'s who are generating solid power #'s in the majors. It's not that Patterson completely missed the mark on this one - like i said he did mention the LD% very briefly. However, he also failed to factor in that he's working with a very small sample size from a young player at his first full season above A ball. I just don't see any real validity in Patterson's swing mechanics theory and find it as plausible if not more so to ask, 'is Anderson's second full season as a pro as likely to be an anomaly as his first?' or 'did pitchers at a higher level take advantage of Lars' patient approach at the plate and his high K rate in a level of the pros that stresses first and foremost for pitchers to pound the strikezone?' or even, 'did Lars' back issues slow down his bat speed?' It's not that the article is total sht, but I'm just saying the article and the way it was presented in this thread was a bit shortsighted.