Unless you consider a neurophysiological training solution to correct the anomalies collected through this data, it just comes down to a numbers game. A specific motor learning "solution" should become the basis upon which this data – especially when it comes to preventing soft tissue injuries – is administered.
There is no reactionary motor learning or in-position neurophysiological training to produce a more "defined" moment of reaction; now, in real-time, which is sustainable over a game, a season. Data as used today is creating more and more "tendencies," hypotheticals; that makes more guesswork. Staying with pitch counts too often, creating shifts too often, etc.
However, I would opine that the neuromuscular tensegrity and motor re-education - training specific corrections to these tendencies – are much more valuable. The in position and sport-specific biomechanics of training a batter to perform a more efficient swing sequence are not currently utilized. Too much emphasis is placed on "numbers," launch angle, exit velocity, spin rate. These are outcomes of analysis, video of pitches, swings, and creates tendencies for more data, not efficient biomechanics. To the latter point, training is all wrong. Muscle building, at the expense of greater mobility, is contraindicated when performing a more biomechanically correct swing.
It is no wonder that soft tissue injuries are on the rise. Hamstring pulls, oblique pulls, shoulder tightness, etc. If you cannot move, you will not improve. Neurophysiological training for a reaction is more definable, more consistent with better production of desired outcomes.