2016 Hitter Contact-Quality Report: AL Catchers

A classic Super Bowl is behind us, large trucks are headed to Florida and Arizona, and spring is in the air — at least in some places a distance from my Wisconsin residence. We’re entering the home stretch of our position-by-position look at hitter contact quality, utilizing granular exit-speed and launch-angle data. Last time, it was National League right fielders. Now, it’s the catchers’ turn. We begin with a look at the 2016 AL regulars at that position.

The players below are listed in Adjusted Production order. Adjusted Production expresses, on a scale where 100 equals average, what a hitter “should have” produced based on the exit speed/launch angle of each ball put in play. Each player’s Adjusted Contact Score, which weeds out the strikeouts and walks and states what each player should have produced on BIP alone, is also listed. Here goes:

AL C BIP Profiles
NAME AVG MPH FLY MPH LD MPH GB MPH POP % FLY % LD % GB % ADJ C K % BB % wRC+ ADJ PRD PULL %
Iannetta 89.7 88.2 94.6 89.6 6.1% 30.3% 22.4% 41.1% 116 24.6% 11.2% 77 107 41.9%
Wieters 88.5 91.3 93.3 83.1 5.0% 34.5% 24.2% 36.3% 101 18.3% 6.9% 88 102 37.4%
B.McCann 89.6 90.0 92.8 88.7 4.2% 39.9% 21.5% 34.4% 91 20.1% 11.0% 103 98 50.0%
R.Martin 89.8 92.8 96.3 86.0 4.8% 30.8% 17.9% 46.5% 111 27.7% 12.0% 99 96 37.4%
Leon 86.8 87.6 88.5 86.6 2.7% 28.5% 24.7% 44.1% 105 23.3% 8.1% 123 95 46.4%
Vogt 86.2 89.0 89.3 80.9 4.9% 41.6% 23.2% 30.3% 83 15.6% 6.6% 93 90 36.6%
Castro 89.9 91.7 93.4 86.7 0.5% 33.5% 20.2% 45.8% 114 32.7% 12.0% 88 87 43.0%
J.McCann 88.8 88.7 95.4 86.3 2.2% 38.4% 18.4% 41.0% 117 29.2% 6.2% 66 87 39.3%
K.Suzuki 87.8 87.0 93.7 86.2 4.0% 34.5% 21.3% 40.2% 71 12.9% 4.8% 86 80 44.7%
S.Perez 89.6 88.9 95.2 89.8 7.3% 39.8% 18.4% 34.5% 87 21.8% 4.0% 88 76 47.4%
Navarro 85.2 84.1 91.5 82.6 6.0% 38.2% 21.0% 34.8% 73 21.3% 6.9% 56 71 39.9%
Casali 86.6 89.1 88.8 83.3 7.7% 36.1% 19.4% 36.8% 81 32.0% 9.8% 67 64 51.0%
C.Perez 84.9 82.9 88.9 84.8 8.2% 33.8% 16.9% 41.1% 61 16.8% 4.1% 53 62 37.6%
B.Wilson 85.7 86.4 90.6 81.8 7.1% 28.0% 23.8% 41.1% 75 25.5% 4.4% 64 61 54.9%
Gomes 87.5 88.8 93.0 84.0 6.5% 38.6% 16.3% 38.6% 73 26.1% 3.4% 33 58 42.4%
AVERAGE 87.8 88.4 92.4 85.4 5.1% 35.1% 20.6% 39.1% 91 23.2% 7.4% 79 82 43.3%

Most of the column headers are self-explanatory, including average BIP speed (overall and by BIP type), BIP type frequency, K and BB rates, wRC+ and Adjusted Production, which incorporates the exit speed/angle data. Each hitter’s Adjusted Contact Score (ADJ C) is also listed. Adjusted Contact Score applies league-average production to each hitter’s individual actual BIP type and velocity mix, and compares it to league average of 100.

Cells are also color-coded. If a hitter’s value is two standard deviations or more higher than average, 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.

It should be noted that individual hitters’ BIP frequency and authority figures correlate quite well from year to year, with one notable exception. As with pitchers, individual hitters’ liner rates fluctuate quite significantly from year to year, for all but a handful of hitters with a clear talent (or lack thereof) for squaring up the baseball.

Projecting performance based on BIP speed/angle opens us up to a couple biases that we didn’t need to address when evaluating pitchers. Pitchers face a mix of pull- and opposite-field-oriented hitters, more and less authoritative hitters, etc. Hitters are who they are each time they step up to the plate, and we must choose whether or not to address their individual tendencies.

I have adjusted the projected ground-ball performance for hitters who meet two criteria. First, they’ve recorded over five times as many grounders to the pull side than to the opposite field and, second, they exhibit a resulting deficiency in actual versus projected grounder performance. Such hitters’ projected grounder performance was capped at their actual performance level. Such hitters’ Adjusted Contact Scores and Adjusted Production figures are in red fonts.

I have decided not to adjust for the other primary factor that can skew actual versus projected performance based on exit speed/angle — namely, player speed. We’re attempting to assess hitter contact quality here; let’s keep speed/athleticism separate. As a result, we’ll see some slow, hard-hitting-to-all-fields sluggers overperform on this metric, and some more athletic players underperform. Contact quality is just part of offensive baseball; let’s attempt to isolate and evaluate it on its own.

Offense is obviously not the most important part of the catcher’s job. Receiving, handling of the pitching staff, and the opposition’s running game are huge. That said, a catcher who can hit gives a club a significant advantage over its competition. The AL was virtually devoid of offense at this position in 2016. As you’ll see in our next installment, NL receivers had a much better year with the bat. For now, let’s get through this middling bunch.

The first observation is that not a single one of the above receivers posted an overall exit speed above the average range. Lots of blue and black in the above table. The second observation is that… wait a minute, why is Chris Iannetta sitting atop the group? On one hand, it didn’t take much impact to earn that distinction. On the other, Iannetta was clearly unlucky in 2016. The disparity between his Unadjusted Fly Ball (34) and Grounder (56) Contact Scores pale in comparison to his Adjusted 108 and 128 marks. The former was largely due to the still-spacious outfield in left-center and center field in Safeco Park. The latter is a bit misleading, as he very nearly qualified for an extreme grounder-pulling penalty, which would have trimmed his Adjusted Production figure a bit.

Iannetta is clearly in decline; his overall average exit speed has gradually moved downward, and his high 2016 liner rate is due to regress. Nevertheless, the Diamondbacks were still wise to buy low on him. He’ll likely be their primary receiver and is a solid bet to serve as a near-average offensive performer thanks to his high BB rate and sound overall contact authority.

The only other 2016 AL regular catcher to record an Adjusted Production figure above 100, Matt Wieters, is still looking for a job. On one hand, Wieters was a bit unlucky last season. He batted only .602 AVG-.735 SLG on line drives (77 Unadjusted Contact Score), despite underlying data supporting a 98 mark. That said, this is an old player’s profile. His K and BB rates have both trended in the wrong direction over time, and his average exit speed has also gradually diminished. Like Iannetta, his liner rate is also likely to negatively regress moving forward. He’s a power-focused hitter (low grounder velocity due to uppercut stroke) without much power. I certainly understand clubs’ reluctance to invest materially in Wieters, despite the paucity of talent at the position.

Brian McCann moves southwest to Houston in 2017. McCann is what he is what he is: a “harvesting” dead-pull power hitter in the early stages of his decline phase. As long as he can meet the defensive requirements of the position, that’s just fine. His fly-ball rate is maxed out, which worked out OK with the short porch in right at Yankee Stadium, and will do so again in Minute Maid. His batting average will remain under severe strain (48 Unadjusted Contact Score) thanks to his extreme grounder-pulling tendency and the overshifts it brings. His walk rate is strong and moving up; McCann looks like a .240 hitter with 15-20 home-run power and a decent OBP, which is just fine among this group.

Russell Martin ranks at or near the top of this group in terms of athleticism, despite his advancing years. He’s actually slated to play some middle infield in the upcoming World Baseball Classic. His profile, like most, is a mixed bag of pros and cons. There’s very little yellow in the exit-speed columns above and much of it belongs to Martin. His 158 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score leads this pack. On the down side, his K rate shot skyward last season, by about a full third. He hasn’t hit liners for a while now, with liner-rate percentile ranks of 15 and below in three of the last four seasons, so his poor standing in that category isn’t that concerning. He might have a 20-homer year left in him, but his offensive decline is underway.

Sell your Sandy Leon futures today, if you haven’t already. His exit-speed data would fit in better at the bottom of the table, amidst the Casalis and Wilsons. Leon overperformed on every ball-in-play category in 2016 (112 Unadjusted vs. 85 Adjusted Fly Ball, 113 vs. 86 Liner, 171 vs. 89 Grounder, and 142 vs. 105 Overall Contact Score). The overall Adjusted mark remained above average solely because of his elevated liner rate, which most assuredly is a total fluke. It was fun while it lasted.

Stephen Vogt is a fairly unique offensive player, with a fairly unique BIP profile among this group. He’s an extreme fly-ball hitter with a fairly pronounced feel for squaring up the baseball, as evidenced by his consistently above-average (and trending upward) liner rates. That said, there are signs of decline here. His BB rate and overall BIP authority have been trending downward, and his average grounder exit speed is among the lowest in baseball. Also, a substantial fly-ball rate doesn’t do much good when you’re running an Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score of 57. His low K rate and high liner rate will smooth his decline, but it’s underway.

Jason Castro heads north from Houston to Minnesota this season. His range of potential offensive outcomes is arguably larger than those of any other player in this group. He has his merits: a very rare knack for avoiding pop ups while hitting a significant number of fly balls, a strong BB rate, and solid overall BIP authority (146 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score, for example) relative to this group. Two major factors have held him back, however. Most important is his stratospheric K rate. He simply cannot make material headway unless he cuts it big time. Secondly, he batted just .152 AVG-.165 SLG (40 Unadjusted Contact Score) on the ground — and flirted with an excessive grounder-pulling penalty — which would have cut his Adjusted Production figure quite a bit. I’m taking the glass-half-full approach with Castro, and expect him to move near the top of this list in the next year or two as he taps into some power.

James McCann is clearly a defense-first receiver; he didn’t even hit much in college. That said, he has shown some signs of becoming at least something more than an offensive zero. He actually possesses a rare “yellow” exit-speed cell in the above table and, like Castro, minimized pop ups despite a substantial fly-ball rate last season. His 118 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score (and 117 Overall, best among AL Cs) suggests there might be a 15-20 home-run season lurking in there at some point. All of that said, he has no chance of ever batting above seventh in a decent MLB lineup if he doesn’t rehabilitate that awful K/BB foundation.

There is comparatively little distance between Kurt Suzuki’s floor and ceiling. He rarely walks or whiffs, and his baseball-impacting ability is among the weakest at this offensively bereft position. He tends to run at least league-average liner rates, which keeps him barely afloat. He moves to Atlanta this season, where he’ll split time with his polar opposite, Tyler Flowers.

What’s Salvador Perez doing so far down on this list, you say? Well, it’s simply the next phase in his re-enactment of the entire career of Tony Pena. Both were ironman offensive performers (at least relative to the position) early in their career, only to see their offensive development suffer, likely due to the heavy workload. Pena remained a strong defender into his 30s, and Perez should as well. But the K rate is way up, the pop-up rate is high, and an extreme pull tendency has developed. Sure, the low 2016 liner rate should regress upward, edging him a little higher on this list in the short term, but he simply isn’t a middle-of-the-order bat.

Things get ugly from here. The rest of the players on this list aren’t really full-timers, with the possible exception of a healthy Yan Gomes; they’re simply the guys who recorded the most plate appearances at catcher on their respective clubs. Dioner Navarro’s greatest offensive “hits” include his 43 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score and his extreme pull tendency on the ground, which explains his .121 AVG-.121 SLG (24 Unadjusted Contact Score) on that BIP type. He’s a backup at best.

Curt Casali has a little pop (104 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score), but that’s about it. His K rate is outrageous, as is his pop-up rate, like most of the others near the bottom of this list. He, too, is a backup type.

Carlos Perez should never again be allowed to accumulate the number of plate appearances he did last season. There is absolutely nothing on which he can hang his offensive hat. Poor across-the-board BP authority? Check. Extreme pop-up rate? Check. His 80 Adjusted Liner Contact Score ranks almost at the very bottom of both leagues. At least he doesn’t whiff that much. Another backup.

It’s a victory of sorts for career journeyman Bobby Wilson to actually qualify for one of these lists. He was even worse than his modest actual numbers thanks to a high liner rate that is ripe for regression and good fortune on fly balls (134 Unadjusted vs. 75 Adjusted Contact Score). He might not even be a backup; he’s more of the Triple-A insurance type.

A brief strong stretch a couple years back netted Yan Gomes a financial commitment from the Indians. It’s pretty hard to overstate how poorly he’s performed since, at least in part due to injury. It was actually an easy decline to call: his K/BB foundation was always poor, but he ran an extremely high liner rate in 2014-15, begging regression. That said, his physical woes have sapped his exit speeds across all BIP types, which were comfortably above average as recently as 2014. The Tribe will likely attempt to nurse him back to health in a job share with Roberto Perez, who looked pretty good at bat and behind the dish down the stretch in their magical 2016 run.





12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dannymember
7 years ago

I know he doesn’t really count as a regular, but Tony, could you share any insight on one Gary Sanchez?

ejchrist
7 years ago
Reply to  Danny

Gattis and Lucroy are strange omissions as well. The top 3 AL catchers by ADP aren’t discussed.

CM52
7 years ago
Reply to  ejchrist

ADP? No one cares about your league.

mr.met89
7 years ago
Reply to  CM52

Do you know what ADP means?

ejchrist
7 years ago
Reply to  CM52

We all care about James McCann and his .630 OPS and Matt Wieters, who doesn’t have a job. But the three AL catchers that had the highest OPS last year? Irrelevant.

CM52
7 years ago
Reply to  ejchrist

We do because this is dealing with people who were an American League starting catchers in 2016, most of whom will again be starting catchers in 2017. In real baseball, James McCann is much more relevant to catcher discussion than Evan Gattis.

Unsurprisingly, Gattis has already been examined where he belongs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2016-hitter-contact-quality-report-al-first-base-and-dh/), and Lucroy will almost certainly be on the NL edition.

Anon
7 years ago
Reply to  ejchrist

Gattis was in the 1B/DH page because he was not the primary C for Houston last year and started more games at DH than C. Feel free to go look up his numbers up there.

One would assume LuCroy is in the NL catcher page (which is not yet released) since he played many more games for Milwaukee than Texas.

Stevil
7 years ago
Reply to  ejchrist

Gattis was never Houston’s primary backstop, that would be Castro–who is listed–and Lucroy spent the first half with the Brewers, so you can probably anticipate him appearing on the NL list.

You can fault Tony for sticking with reality baseball, though.