Alcides Escobar and a Bat and a Ball

Alcides Escobar is not a good hitter. I don’t say that to be mean — I say that to be honest. Even the Royals don’t really know how to explain Esky Magic. There’s no getting around his regular-season numbers, and when you mix in what he’s done in the playoffs, it doesn’t make that much of a difference. He’s the kind of hitter that, if you saw him in a community park, you’d think, that guy ought to play in the majors. But he’s the kind of hitter that, when he’s in the majors, you think, that guy plays a hell of a shortstop. In his best year, Escobar was a bit below average. He followed that year with a year where he hit like a good-hitting pitcher.

Escobar doesn’t walk, and Escobar doesn’t hit for power. The thing he has going for him is he’s tremendously difficult to strike out. In that sense he blends in with the Royals, although even on that roster he’s one of the standouts. Escobar, in short, is good at taking the bat to the baseball. From there, things will sort themselves out. The most charitable way to describe Escobar’s offense is that, with his speed and his contact ability, he’s usually capable of making something happen. Better a ball in play than a whiff, right? You never know, with a ball in play.

In the World Series opener, Escobar’s contact allowed for things to happen. After days of talking about the Royals’ ability to avoid the whiff, Escobar put contact to good use. Two examples were and are obvious. A third was subtle, but without it, Escobar doesn’t score the winning run on the Eric Hosmer sac fly.

If you can take yourself all the way back, go back to the bottom of the first. By this point, even my houseplants know that Escobar has shown a habit of swinging at the first pitch of the ballgame. Seemingly unconcerned — because I can’t imagine he was unaware — Matt Harvey tried to groove a fastball into the glove of Travis d’Arnaud. Escobar swung, like he does, and after he was finished swinging, he subsequently began scoring.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Escobar drove the pitch, for sure. The contact was good. That still probably should’ve been an out, but because of a defensive miscue, Escobar wound up credited with an inside-the-park home run. That’s literally how the Royals offense began its World Series. The big thing Escobar did was hit the ball somewhere fair. The Mets did much of the rest. Balls in play can go for legitimate hits, and they can get messed up by the opponent. Contact. Something happened. All right.

Move all the way ahead to the 14th. Leading off against Bartolo Colon, Escobar got to two strikes, stayed alive, and then pulled a grounder. Seconds later, Escobar was on proper course to become the winning run.

David Wright actually made two mistakes. He seemed to recover from the first, but perhaps because Escobar runs well, Wright had to hurry a throw, and it pulled his teammate off the bag. That put Escobar on first, and Ben Zobrist put Escobar on third, and Eric Hosmer brought Escobar home. Contact. Something happened. All right. Escobar demonstrated one of the upsides of not striking out.

Stay with that at-bat, though. What people will remember is the error. They’ll remember Lucas Duda getting pulled inches off the base. Maybe inch, at the point where he caught Wright’s throw. The error was indeed the biggest thing, but it wouldn’t have happened had Escobar not managed to stay alive. The at-bat began, unexpectedly, with a pair of called strikes. Then Escobar fought off a pair of fastballs up and away. Maybe frustrated, maybe just looking to catch Escobar by surprise, Colon threw his first slider of the outing.

Colon doesn’t throw that many sliders. He’s a fastball guy, a command guy. Escobar took an emergency hack, and he finished his swing standing in front of the left-handed batter’s box. The moving image is wild enough, but there’s nothing better than a still. The still shows the truth, and it shows it permanently.

escobar-contact

Were it not for the glove, and, improbably, the bat, the pitch would’ve been on a collision course with d’Arnaud’s right knee. Escobar lunged, and while the pitch was down and more than a foot outside, Escobar slapped it away, forcing another delivery. It was that next delivery that led to Wright’s error, that led to the game ending. I decided to create this plot — here’s all of Escobar’s career contact, with the above pitch clearly highlighted. (This does not include foul tips; only regular fouls, as far as fouls are concerned.)

escobar-contact-plot

You see the pitch, toward the fringes. By PITCHf/x coordinates, the pitch was 28 inches from the center of the strike zone, making it the fifth-wildest pitch Escobar has ever hit. It’s separated from No. 1 by barely over an inch. It was contact to the extreme. When a hitter elects to swing at that pitch, it’s pretty much always going to be a whiff. Escobar kept himself battling, and he shortly thereafter arrived on base.

The easy response: Escobar could’ve also stayed alive by just not swinging at the slider in the first place. There are borderline balls, and there are pretty obvious balls, and there are very obvious balls, and there is that pitch. Then Escobar would’ve faced Colon with the count 1-and-2. Absolutely, yes, this is correct. Escobar would be better if he were more disciplined, and this is evidence in a way of why Escobar isn’t more productive overall. He goes after too many bad pitches.

But being aggressive is just part of his game. As such, he goes outside the zone, so he damn well better be able to put the bat on the ball. Despite the aggressiveness, Escobar doesn’t strike out very much. He’s learned how to put the bat on bad pitches, and that’s precisely what he did against Colon. So much of the talk in the lead-up was how hard it can be to put the Royals hitters away. Escobar kept himself going just long enough to benefit from a defensive mistake. Contact. Something happened.

The best thing to do on that pitch is just not swing. Given a swing, however, the best thing to do on that pitch is knock it away foul so you might get something better. This is how Escobar did a bad thing and a good thing at the same time.

And in the end, the numbers show that Alcides Escobar’s plate appearances were a net positive for the Royals. Escobar himself wasn’t all that good. The biggest plays were just mistakes by the Mets. But that’s just one of the things that can happen when you don’t strike out very much — you gain additional opportunities for good breaks. Sometimes it’s a non-factor, sometimes it’s a small factor, and sometimes it’s a huge factor. You could say this is just one of the ways that Alcides Escobar can beat you. He can put the bat on the ball and put you in position to beat yourself.





Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

37 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Hurtlocker
10 years ago

How on earth is that “inside the park homerun” not an error?? Both outfielders got to the ball with time to make the catch, it clanked off Cespedes glove and leg, he kicked it 50 feet??? How was that not an error??
Hosmer got an error at first on a more difficult play in my view. (although I think he could have gotten in front of the ball, so the error was legit) Are official scorers afraid to give players errors these days??

Orsulakfan
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

I agree.

And then there’s the decision to play Kelly Johnson at DH over inserting Lagares in CF. It might have cost the Mets the game.

John McNamara
10 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

If anything, Collins should be saving Johnson as a late-innings defensive replacement for Wright if his back is really acting up.

Roger
10 years ago
Reply to  John McNamara

Juan Uribe is on the WS roster too, and is a better fit for that role if he’s physically intact enough to do it.

David
10 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

Cespedes is not a CF. But OF errors only seem to be scored correctly if a can of corn bounces of the glove with no sunlight interfering. It’s dumb.

David
10 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

Was that Harold reynolds saying “that ball has to be an out”?

joser
10 years ago
Reply to  David

Yes, in the sense that the Mets have to make that an out. In any game, a ball hit to that location should be an out. In an important game, that ball has to be an out. It wasn’t a statement of fact, it was a criticism.

Shirtless George Brett
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

You know, I get them not ruling the missed intial catch an error. They rarely ever give out errors for miscommunications or poor routes. But once it hits Cespedes and bounces into LF I cant see how thats not ruled a single and a three base error.

Not that it really matters I suppose. A run is a run.

John C
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

Plays like that are never scored as errors. There’s no scorer in MLB who would have scored that any differently. It’s a case of miscommunication between the outfielders, and since there’s no such thing as a shared error, or a team error, it goes as a hit.

joser
10 years ago
Reply to  John C

But as shirtless above says, there’s the miscommunication (or whatever failure caused Cespedes to initially freeze on the hit) — and then there’s the booting of the ball from center to left field.

moarwalrus
10 years ago
Reply to  joser

If the miscommunication led to the ball hitting Cespedes in the top of the head and the ball bounced away, would that be an error? If shared miscommunication obviates the error, then why does it matter whether the ball deflected off his glove, his shoe or his head on the fly? I agree, no error.

Shirtless George Brett
10 years ago
Reply to  joser

Because the ball deflecting off him turned what would have been a single/double into a HR. Unless you think Escobar makes it home even if the ball doesnt hit Cespedes then I think it has to be ruled at least a two base errror. The miscommunication gave him 1 or 2 bases but it was another seperate event that turned it into a HR.

You cant call the miscommunication an error because you cant attribute it to one guy (which, BTW is silly. Why cant you give two guys an error at once if they both screwed up?) but you can certainly attribute the deflection to one guy. And it was the deflection that caused the run to score when it otherwise wouldnt have.

To be honest though, I really have no problem with how it was called. Its pretty inconsequential.

Elvis Andrus
10 years ago

I wish I had his plate coverage.

Bartolo Colon
10 years ago
Reply to  Elvis Andrus

It’s nothing compared to mine.

Orsulakfan
10 years ago

First World Series inside-the-park HR since Hack Wilson lost Mule Haas’s ball in the sun as part of a 10-run 7th-inning comeback from an 8-0 deficit when the Philadelphia A’s beat the Chicago Cubs in the 1929 World Series. Cool.

Minister of Carpatho-Ruthenia Affairs
10 years ago
Reply to  Orsulakfan

How the blazes did that gumshoe scorer award Mule Haas an “inside the park homerun”??

Neil S
10 years ago

Wow, I’m not sure how you can possibly justify *not* scoring this an error.

On the other hand, of course, errors are arbitrary, archaic, and silly things and we should probably just get rid of them anyway. (although I doubt that’s what the scorekeeper had in mind)

Matt Wojciak
10 years ago
Reply to  Neil S

Wait, what? You want to get rid of the error? I think that’s hardly a solution… People just need to be more strict with the rule. Which is pretty clear-cut in the rulebook but not known by many people nowadays.

joser
10 years ago
Reply to  Matt Wojciak

Errors are binary and thus will always be arbitrary. No matter how you word it, no matter how strictly you enforce it, the fact that there’s a “rule” means that there will always be ambiguity. No matter where you draw the line, there will be plays that fall exactly on it, plays about which reasonable people can disagree.

And none of that helps us determine what we (or at least most of us) really care about: who is a good fielder? Who is a bad fielder. Given two fielders, which one is better? Just counting errors is a very crude approximation that misses much (and will always be mired in uncertainty). Most of the time no error is recorded, so most of the time we learn nothing.

What we want to know is the details within all those non-error plays — and the few error plays as well. Positioning, reads, jumps, acceleration, speed, range, glovework, footwork, throw velocity and accuracy. That’s what tells us who the better fielders are, and how. We get none of that by collapsing all of that down into “he made an error” or, most of the time, “he didn’t.”

Notthepuck
10 years ago
Reply to  joser

That makes no sense.

A SS with great range gets to a ball that another SS doesn’t, but the first SS boots it.

In effect, the great range did no good. Neither player recorded an out.

Of course errors matter, and should be considered when evaluating defense.

Just because its gotten hard to be charged with an error by scorekeepers doesn’t mean a tendency to misplay balls should be removed from consideration, either.

kdl
10 years ago
Reply to  joser

But what you suggest hardly makes sense either.

In effect you want to penalize the first fielder for having better range, yet producing the same result as the player who did not get to the ball at all.

How is that sensical?

Notthepuck
10 years ago
Reply to  joser

Because you’re not penalizing the first SS for having better range. You’re simply not rewarding him for something that didnt result in an out.

Both players got the same result. Without accounting for errors, one SS would be “better” than the other, when both actually got the same number of outs

McKay
10 years ago

“He’s the kind of hitter that, if you saw him in a community park, you’d think, that guy ought to play in the majors. But he’s the kind of hitter that, when he’s in the majors, you think, that guy plays a hell of a shortstop.”

Great description.

free-range turducken
10 years ago

Alcides Escobar and a bat and a ball walk into a bar. Escobar and the bat immediately start hitting on the ball.

tz
10 years ago

And then he quickly gets past second base…then third…then holy cow this kid really makes things happen out there.

I'm So Meta Even This Acronym...
10 years ago
Reply to  tz

Stop right there!
I gotta know right now!
Before we go any further!
Do you love me?
Will you love me forever?
Do you need me?
Will you never leave me?
Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life?
Will you take me away and will you make me your wife?

Serbian to Vietnamese to French and back
10 years ago

With that I need Learn
Before loin
I do not like you! ?
Volezelj forever! ?

Let me sleep dessus
Baba, baba do not let me sleep dessus
Let me sleep dessus
I’ll give you the answer in the morning

(Repeat etc)
Prevented supporter
God is intolerable.
And when it falls on me, impresion
As waves.
I started to swear on the grave of my mother and Dieu
I love you to the end of temps
I love you to the end of temps
I’ll love you till the end of time.
Now I pray to God that I had until the end of temps
De Power
Because if I have to spend a bit with TOI
I do not think it really survives
I never break their promises or forget your voeu
But God knows what I can do right maintenant
I pray for the end of temps
That’s all I can do (oh ooooh)
I pray for the end of time, my life with you!

Kenny
10 years ago

So isn’t there math that needs to be done here? – determining the real value of contact. We spend endless amounts of time figuring out the 2-3% advantage of the platoon advantage for hitters (what, 6 or 8 hits a year?) We ridicule the arbitrariness of ERA, since it doesn’t charge pitchers in a consistent way thus adding a new element of randomness (scorers’ judgment) to how we rank pitchers. Yet we rank batters in a manner unadjusted for contact, which means they don’t get credit for the additional, deserved, reached-on-errors in their OBPs. What if we made this adjustment? What if, by a real talent, Escobar actually is getting on base 6-8 times a year more than he’s being given credit for – and the Royals as a team are getting on base 50-60 times more? (Could the number be even higher?) Would it explain some piece of the difference between the Royals’ offensive mediocrity as we now understand it and their positive run scoring? Would it help to explain this in a better manner than “random variation”?

Ned Yost
10 years ago
Reply to  Kenny

All great questions. SABRs say the Royals get lucky in high leverage situations. But the other teams have already ended their innings a hitter or two earlier by striking out.

John C
10 years ago
Reply to  Kenny

You really can’t “determine the real value of contact,” because it’s very different for every hitter. Making contact consistently is extremely valuable for a guy like Escobar, who’s fast and can turn a misplayed fly ball into a home run. It’s much less valuable if you’re Kendrys Morales and can’t get out of your own way on a ground ball. You’d rather have him strike out any day than hit a ground ball with a runner on first. That’s why he had 24 GIDP’s this season. All the good things he does with a bat offset that, but he doesn’t generate nearly the positive value of Esky just from contact.

There’s nothing at all magical about the Royals. They play in a terrible home-run park, but Kauffman has a spacious outfield, small foul territory, and a great batter’s eye, so in every other way, it’s good to hit in. So you assemble a bunch of fast line-drive and contact hitters and have them do their thing, and a fly-ball pitching staff with fast outfielders. KC did the same things in the 1970s and won. Just because the style isn’t in vogue now doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. It’s actually a market inefficiency. Anyone who says the Royals are “thumbing their noses at Moneyball” doesn’t get it. Moneyball is about exploiting market inefficiency. No one’s doing that better right now than Dayton Moore is.

NatsFan73
10 years ago
Reply to  Kenny

But don’t we? I’m not intimately familiar with the formulae for things like xBABIP, but doesn’t it purport to calculate expected results based on type of contact regardless of the actual result?

Dave TMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  NatsFan73

@NatsFan73 – no, what Kenny says is largely correct. In building up wOBA (and hence ultimately WAR), a strikeout by a hitter is treated just like any other kind of out.

So there are a variety of positive outcomes from contact – reaching on errors, moving up baserunners – that aren’t captured in WAR. There’s also, as John C says, the negative of grounding into double plays. That negative is captured by at least some WAR calculations – I know that rWAR picks it up, not sure about fWAR.

Mark
10 years ago

I’m stunned anybody is throwing him fastballs. I watched him for the Jays series and they had trouble with him till they stopped throwing first pitch fastballs. Estrada threw change ups, and then Price I believe went to breaking balls, and he went from ALCS MVP to his regular season self.

Stop throwing him fastballs. You know he’s swinging first pitch. Do what Colon did. I’m amazed the Mets didn’t learn from the scouting or watching him.

Minister of Carpatho-Ruthenia Affairs
10 years ago
Reply to  Mark

It’s easy to yell at him over the Internet, but starting off a WS game is pretty damn stressful and a pitcher may just force his way through the jitters in the most relaxed, muscle-memory way: throwing fastballs. Or, Harvey’s conviction is that he can get anyone out, that mindset has worked in the past, so why abandon it? Or the law of averages. Or, whatever, it’s not easy.

What’re the odds that D-GRO abandons first pitch fastball for the likes of Esky?

Shirtless George Brett
10 years ago
Reply to  Mark

Its not really that simple though. If you stop throwing him fastballs you run the opposite problem and eventually he is going to adjust and realize they arent throwing him fastballs. Then he can just sit on offspeed.

There is also the problem that for most pitchers their best pitch is a fastball. If they decide to stop throwing it then they are essientially putting more pressure on pitches that arent as good. Their 2nd or 3rd (or even 4th) best pitches. According to FG’s Matt Harvey’s fastball is nearly 3 times more valuable then his second pitch (slider) and 10x more valuable than his 3rd and 4th pitches. I would much rather he challenge guys with his best pitch then try and sneak by with lesser pitches.

Just dont throw the damn thing right down the middle of the plate!

Tyler
10 years ago
Reply to  Mark

You do realize that Colon’s first four pitches to Escobar were fastballs, right?

Eric
10 years ago

“Alcides Escobar is not a good hitter. I don’t say that to be mean — I say that to be honest. Even the Royals don’t really know how to explain Esky Magic. ”

It may stump you, but it doesn’t stump me. Its called HEWCO, CCR, and BSM the stats I use to evaluate offense and they completely replace Ave, OBP, SLG, OPS.

Alcides Escobar’s HEWCO score and adjusted HEWCO score are 626 and 704 respectively. Only 18 offensive players in 2015 have a score of 700 and above. If you want the stat or research or the math you can email me at imtigerwords@yahoo.com