Also from FanGraphs:
http://www.fangraphs.com/library/offense/batted-ball/
Why Batted Ball Stats:
Batted ball stats are extremely useful for determining the type of hitter at which you’re looking. There is no ideal batted ball distribution, but batters who hit a lot of line drives typically perform better than hitters who hit lots of fly balls or ground balls. Generally speaking, line drives go for hits most often, ground balls go for hits more often than fly balls, and fly balls are more productive than ground balls when they do go for hits (i.e. extra base hits). Additionally, infield fly balls are essentially strikeouts and almost never result in hits or runner advancement. Here are the numbers from 2014:
| Type | AVG | ISO | wOBA |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB | .239 | .020 | .220 |
| LD | .685 | .190 | .684 |
| FB | .207 | .378 | .335 |
So, my take is why not focus on line drives which looks like the sweet spot. I've spent hours watching MLB games tracking swings: over, under and on (bat relative to ball). Roughly 60% of swings are under resulting in misses, pop ups, fly balls and the occasional home run.The remaining 40% of swings seem to be divided somewhat evenly between "over" (resulting in ground balls) and "on" resulting in line drives. If players can hit consistently under the ball 60% of the time why can't they hit consistently "on" the ball 60% of the time? The answer, I think, is they can but as the original article in this thread points out players have been taught for decades that backspin is the goal and that requires hitting the lower half (under) of the ball. Why not hit the middle half of the ball? The stats show a much higher chance of success offensively and every once in awhile you'll screw up and hit one out. Win win.
It seems to me, there has been a greater focus on the home run these days. Guys that can really pound the ball into orbit seem more desirable than those who can hit for average and get on base.
Yup, that seems to be, but. . .
. . . look at the Giants over the last 5 years. 
