2015 Starting Pitcher Ball-in-Play Retrospective – AL Central

The 2016 season is in its early stages, though sample sizes obviously remain way too small to take very seriously. So let’s just sit back and enjoy the 2016 games for now, and continue our ball-in-play-based analysis of 2015 starting pitcher performance. Two more to go. Last time, we looked at the AL East. Today, the AL Central is on tap.

First, some ground rules. To come up with an overall player population roughly equal to one starting rotation per team, the minimum number of batted balls allowed with Statcast readings was set at 243. Pitchers are listed with their 2015 division mates; those who were traded during the season will appear in the division in which they compiled the most innings. Pitchers are listed in “tru” ERA order. For those who have not read my previous articles on the topic, “tru” ERA is the ERA pitchers “should” have compiled based on the actual BIP frequency and authority they allowed relative to the league. Here we go:

Starting Pitcher BIP Profiles – AL Central
AVG MPH FB/LD MPH GB MPH POP % FLY % LD % GB % ADJ C K % BB % ERA – FIP – TRU –
Sale 85.93 89.75 81.38 3.5% 31.8% 22.1% 42.6% 97 32.1% 4.9% 85 68 61
Carrasco 88.70 92.53 86.33 2.0% 27.8% 19.0% 51.2% 98 29.6% 5.9% 91 71 69
Verlander 87.42 89.65 87.67 6.3% 39.2% 19.9% 34.6% 77 21.1% 6.0% 84 87 69
Kluber 88.05 91.96 84.76 2.8% 33.1% 21.7% 42.4% 105 27.7% 5.1% 87 74 75
Price 87.95 90.96 85.42 4.0% 32.5% 23.1% 40.4% 98 25.3% 5.3% 61 69 76
Salazar 89.76 92.12 87.89 2.2% 35.2% 18.7% 43.9% 102 25.8% 7.0% 86 90 81
C.Young 87.62 90.88 85.31 8.6% 49.3% 16.6% 25.5% 85 16.6% 8.6% 76 113 82
T.May 88.41 90.14 87.90 4.0% 35.6% 21.4% 39.0% 100 22.4% 5.3% 100 81 83
Milone 87.23 91.32 84.67 5.5% 29.9% 23.0% 41.6% 84 16.8% 6.6% 98 107 84
Quintana 88.10 91.28 86.50 1.9% 27.8% 23.2% 47.1% 100 20.5% 5.1% 84 79 86
An.Sanchez 87.65 90.75 85.37 5.0% 34.1% 21.0% 40.0% 98 20.9% 7.4% 124 118 89
K.Gibson 88.70 93.34 86.39 2.4% 24.4% 19.8% 53.4% 92 17.7% 7.9% 96 99 91
Samardzija 87.98 90.32 87.00 4.0% 35.8% 21.2% 39.0% 102 17.9% 5.4% 124 105 94
Danks 87.01 90.87 83.60 4.4% 36.3% 21.1% 38.2% 92 16.2% 7.3% 117 112 94
Ventura 89.81 93.03 86.97 2.1% 25.1% 20.6% 52.2% 109 22.5% 8.4% 102 89 96
Bauer 88.53 91.45 87.42 5.6% 35.1% 20.1% 39.2% 106 22.9% 10.6% 113 108 97
Volquez 87.96 90.60 86.38 1.6% 31.3% 21.1% 46.0% 100 18.2% 8.5% 89 95 99
Rodon 89.00 91.92 87.77 2.4% 27.4% 23.4% 46.8% 114 22.9% 11.7% 94 97 105
E.Santana 90.42 93.12 88.94 5.5% 32.1% 21.5% 40.9% 111 17.9% 7.9% 100 104 108
Pelfrey 88.37 91.68 87.35 1.8% 24.6% 22.6% 51.0% 102 12.0% 6.3% 106 100 109
Duffy 89.32 91.75 89.42 6.5% 30.0% 24.7% 38.8% 111 17.4% 9.0% 102 110 112
Hughes 90.27 91.99 88.99 4.5% 35.9% 24.2% 35.3% 133 14.4% 2.5% 110 117 124
Simon 90.55 94.43 87.21 4.1% 30.6% 21.7% 43.6% 123 14.3% 8.3% 126 119 129
Guthrie 89.09 90.88 87.84 3.3% 36.5% 25.8% 34.4% 126 12.7% 6.6% 148 140 132
AVERAGE 88.49 91.53 86.60 3.9% 32.6% 21.6% 42.0% 103 20.2% 7.0% 100 98 94

Most of the column headers are self-explanatory, including average BIP speed (overall and by BIP type), BIP type frequency, K and BB rates, and traditional ERA-, FIP-, and “tru” ERA-. Each pitchers’ Adjusted Contact Score (ADJ C) is also listed. Again, for those of you who have not read my articles on the topic, Unadjusted Contact Score is derived by removing Ks and BBs from opposing hitters’ batting lines, assigning run values to all other events, and comparing them to a league average of 100. Adjusted Contact Score applies league-average production to each pitchers’ individual actual BIP type and velocity mix, and compares it to league average of 100.

Cells are also color coded. If a pitcher’s value is two standard deviations or more higher than average (the average of all players in the league, not just at the player’s position), the field is shaded red. If it’s one to two STD higher than average, it’s shaded orange. If it’s one-half to one STD higher than average, it’s shaded dark yellow. If it’s one-half to one STD less than average, it’s shaded blue. If it’s over one STD less than average, it’s shaded black. Ran out of colors at that point. On the rare occasions that a value is over two STD lower than average, we’ll mention it if necessary in the text.

Before we get to the pitchers, a couple words regarding year-to-year correlation of pitchers’ plate-appearance frequencies and BIP authority allowed. From 2013 to -15, ERA qualifiers’ K and BB rates and all BIP frequencies except for liner rate (.14 correlation coefficient) correlated very closely from year to year. The correlation coefficients for K% (.81), BB% (.66), and pop-up (.53), fly-ball (.76) and grounder (.86) rates are extremely high. While BIP authority correlates somewhat from year to year — FLY/LD authority is .37, grounder authority is .25 — it doesn’t correlate nearly as closely as frequency. Keep these relationships in mind as we move on to some random player comments.

About those “rare occasions” when a value is over two STD lower than average… that would apply to the first three fields on Chris Sale‘s profile. In addition to ranking very near the positive extremes of the scale in K and BB rate, Sale throttled all types of BIP authority. One couldn’t tell from his raw numbers, however, thanks to the abysmal Chisox team defense. His Unadjusted Contact Score was a sky-high 122 as a result. Adjusted, it was a still rather ordinary 97 thanks to a somewhat high liner rate, up in the 72nd percentile. Though he lacks a go-to pop-up or grounder frequency tendency, he still rates as an above-average contact manager with ultra-elite K/BB skills; in other words, he’s in Clayton Kershaw’s league.

Carlos Carrasco’s K and BB ratios would stand out in some divisions, though they pale in comparison to Sale’s. He has a strong ground-ball tendency, in the 86th percentile, that will serve as the linchpin of his contact-management portfolio moving forward. He allowed league-average range authority overall, and a little harder than that in the air. One area ripe for some regression to the downside is his low 2015 liner rate, which was way down in the 18th percentile. Still, a superb K/BB guy with a strong grounder tendency projects to rank among the game’s best in the intermediate term.

Hope that you haven’t written off Justin Verlander just yet. The days of Verlander mowing through lineups and contending for strikeout titles may well be over, but his emergent excellence as a contact manager compensates to a significant extent. Always a fly-ball pitcher, Verlander took that tendency to the extreme in 2015, with a fly-ball rate in the 93rd percentile, and more importantly, a pop-up rate in the 96th. Such an extreme fly-ball rate brings significant risk; management of authority in the air becomes paramount. The good news there is that Verlander’s FLY/LD authority was even better than Sale’s, over two STD less than average. That should regress somewhat, but it is a clear Verlander strength. It’s a new development as well: the 2015 campaign was his first with materially better-than-average overall authority allowed. The great ones make adjustments, and he’s a great one.

Corey Kluber didn’t win a second Cy Young last year, but he was pretty darned good. Like teammate Carrasco, Kluber relies on exceptional K and BB rates as the foundation of his excellence. Unlike his teammate, he lacks a go-to pop-up or grounder tendency on which to hang his contact-management hat. He maintains authority levels in the average range, but has allowed higher-than-average liner rates in each of the last three seasons. The liner rate trend has at least moved in the right direction, down to the 61st percentile in 2015. Kluber looks like an average-ish contact manager who will continue to rely upon his K/BB excellence in the intermediate term.

David Price moved to the Blue Jays late last season, and then to the Red Sox as a free agent, after spending the bulk of 2015 as a Tiger. Price is as consistent and predictable as they come. He too has a very strong K/BB foundation which serves as the primary basis for his excellence. His BIP frequency profile is rather vanilla, though he has trended toward a mild fly-ball tendency in recent seasons, something to keep an eye on in the land of the Green Monster. He has tended to hold authority in check to a fair extent throughout his career, making him a slightly better-than-average contact manager, even in a season when his liner rate allowed ranked in the 81st percentile as in 2015. He should have a long and fruitful decline phase.

Here’s another hard-throwing young Indians’ starter to throw on the pile: Danny Salazar. Like teammates Carrasco and Kluber, a more than healthy K rate is a chief strength, though Salazar’s BB rate is a bit higher than those of his two peers. Though his Adjusted Contact Score was held in check to a respectable 102 by a low liner rate (16th percentile), Salazar has allowed very loud contact thus far in his major-league career. Everyone else in the division who allowed similar authority ranks much farther down on the “tru” ERA- list. This is a pivotal year for Salazar: an improved BB rate and contact management ability makes him a star. It’s tough to thrive on Ks alone over the long haul.

Now, on to the marvel that is Chris Young. There isn’t a color in the spectrum for his literally off-the-charts pop-up rate. Every year that he’s pitched enough to qualify, his pop-up rate’s been in the 99th percentile, usually by a wide margin. He’s also done a solid job throughout his career in preventing line drives: his liner rate was over two STD below league average, in the fifth percentile. This gives him some desperately needed margin for error with regard to fly-ball authority; his fly-ball rate has never been below the 95th percentile, and was the highest in MLB in 2015. He kept fly-ball authority in check in 2015, completing an 85 Adjusted Contact Score picture. He brings tons of risk, but can still be an asset when properly deployed.

Trevor May compiled much of his 2015 stats as a reliever, and he begins this season in the pen as well. His ERA was a bit high due to inefficient sequencing last season, but his K and BB rates were both strong, and might even play up a little better given full-time pen usage. He has a fairly distinct fly-ball tendency (82nd percentile), bringing a decent pop-up rate along with it. Over a smaller number of innings moving forward, his numbers will be highly affected by the number of homers he allows. Personally, I hate to see a perfectly good starter moved to the pen; I’ll take 180 average to slightly better innings over 65-70 non-elite and potentially volatile frames.

Tommy Milone’s presence on the upper half of the above list might surprise some. He has pulled off the neat trick of posting very high pop-up rates (86th to 94th percentile from 2012-15) and slightly below-average fly-ball rates (46th and 43rd percentiles in 2014-15). This has made him an above-average contact manager overall, despite lower-than-average K rates and high liner rates (between the 63rd-80th percentiles the last three years). It’s a delicate balance, with downside risk, but as long as Milone is able to keep overall authority in check, he’ll be able to handle at least a fifth-starter role.

Jose Quintana might be the most anonymous pretty good starting pitcher in the game. He takes the ball every fifth day without fail, and does absolutely nothing worse than MLB average. His very low BB rate is his best attribute, and he’s deceptive enough to push his K rate squarely into the average range. He possesses a fairly pronounced grounder tendency (72nd percentile in 2015), and managed to post a 100 Adjusted Contact Score despite a liner rate in the 83rd percentile. Quintana is a safe bet to be a 90ish “tru” ERA guy in the near term; a 95 contact manager with a very low BB rate.

Look at the huge disparity between Anibal Sanchez‘ traditional ERA/FIP versus his “tru” ERA. This guy was one unlucky cat in 2015. Hitters recorded a .479 AVG and .995 SLG on flies and line drives against him, but “should have” hit only .441 AVG-.803 SLG based on authority allowed. His K and BB rates both appear to be in decline, so it will be all about contact management moving forward. He’s drifting toward a more fly ball-based BIP mix, and has developed a strong pop up tendency, in the 81st percentile in 2015. He has always squelched authority, so can likely handle this evolution. Health is the biggest driver here, but Sanchez can still provide upper-rotation performance.

Kyle Gibson made significant strides toward becoming an average or better MLB starter last season. It’s very tough to keep one’s ahead above water with a K rate in the 12th percentile, where Gibson’s was in 2014. Just a relatively innocuous move into the bottom of the average range, the 34th percentile, made a big difference last season. His calling card is his extreme grounder tendency: his grounder rate was in the 94th percentile in 2015. He just might have a true talent for avoiding squared-up contact, with liner rates in the ninth and 26th percentiles the last two seasons. On the rare occasions he allows the ball to be elevated, it tends to be well struck, but overall, the trend lines are positive. There is a bit more upside here.

Now for two more hurlers wounded by the White Sox’ poor team defense last year. Look at the differences between Jeff Samardzija and John Danks‘ traditional ERA/FIP and “tru” ERA marks. Their Unadjusted Contact Scores were 112 and 114, respectively, well above their adjusted levels. The one admittedly scary aspect of Samardzija’s profile is his K rate decline; that’s something to watch in the early going this season. He has a history of squeezing contact authority to a sub-league average level. Danks has largely been written off as a pitcher in decline; I’m not so sure. Sure, his K and BB rates have both trended in the wrong direction over time, but he’s never allowed a higher-than-average liner rate, and his pop-up rate bounced back to the 70th percentile after a one-year drop. Expect Danks to be a league-average starter in 2016.

Yordano Ventura isn’t yet 25 and is still quite a bit more thrower than pitcher. He hasn’t yet reduced his BB rate to an acceptable level, and last season regressed significantly in the contact-management department, allowing very loud FLY/LD contact. That isn’t quite as big of a deal as it sounds, thanks to the Royals’ exceptional outfield defense, as well as his intensifying ground-ball tendency (90th percentile in 2015). His upside remains significant, but he honestly didn’t do much to move towards it in 2016. It’s all about control/command enhancements moving forward.

The last of the Indians’ 2015 power starters is Trevor Bauer, who is now at least temporarily a member of their pen. In this day and age, you simply can’t be an impactful starter with a BB rate in the stratosphere. At the very least, he’d require a more extreme K rate than his recent level. His pop-up tendency is strong (91st percentile), but with it comes plenty of fly balls, and Bauer hasn’t managed their authority all that effectively to date. Slightly subpar overall contact management with an extreme BB rate has been too much to overcome for Bauer to date.

There are many similarities between the profiles of Bauer and Carlos Rodon. Their K rates were exactly the same in 2015, and Rodon’s BB rate was even higher than Bauer’s. The Chisox lefty projects as more of a ground-baller (69th percentile), bringing less long-term risk. One should also expect his liner rate, in the 84th percentile in 2015, to regress downward. The most significant consideration, however, is that this was Rodon’s first rodeo, and overall, he passed the test. His upside is very high, and will need be fueled by improved control/command.

Phil Hughes has always allowed very hard contact, but survived (through 2013) and thrived (in 2014) as a high-K, low-BB guy. 2014 was his only season as an above-average contact manager, and it showed. His K rate somewhat historically plunged from the 80th to 15th percentile in 2015, and his contact management performance regressed to and even beyond career norms. A fly-ball guy allowing hard FLY/LD contact, with a plunging K rate: that’s a recipe for Hughes’ 2015 disaster.





1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
raws
7 years ago

Tommy Milone…wasn’t he in a one act play?

Great work. I love this series.