Anthony Rizzo Keeps Getting Better
Who is the best hitter in the National League? The easy and “right” answer, insomuch as one exists, is Bryce Harper, as we’re mere months removed from watching him put up the best season at the plate by a 22-year-old since Ted Williams. But with Harper currently producing at the plate at a rate more comparable to guys like Odubel Herrera and Stephen Piscotty, it’s natural to ponder the question: “If not Harper, then whom?”
There are a few viable candidates but two who stick out are the only two National League players other than Harper to post a wRC+ above 150 since 2014: Paul Goldschmidt, who has been consistently elite with the bat for four seasons now and, the subject at hand, 26-year-old superstar, Anthony Rizzo.
In the previous sentence, you could argue I threw around the word “superstar” a bit cavalierly. It’s a word from which I tend to shy away because it’s so incredibly subjective as to be functionally meaningless. I don’t know that there are more than two players in the game right now – Mike Trout and Clayton Kershaw – who are labeled “superstars” with anything resembling universal agreement. Anthony Rizzo certainly wouldn’t receive universal billing as a “superstar.” I don’t know if he’s a superstar by your definition – shoot, I just paired him with that term and I’m not completely convinced he’s a superstar by my own subjective definition – but I do know this: Anthony Rizzo is an extraordinarily talented baseball player and, so far this year, he’s putting up what looks like the best season of his major-league career.
He has set or matched his career high in most key offensive rate stats from on-base percentage to wOBA to strikeout and walk rates. But not only is he putting together a strong season by his own standards, his stats stand out in comparison to his competition in the National League:
| 2016 | NL Rank | |
| OBP | .410 | 2 |
| ISO | .291 | 3 |
| wRC+ | 161 | 2 |
| K% | 13.2% | 13 |
| BB% | 13.9% | 7 |
stats current through start of play on Tuesday
There are a variety of different ways to go about building a prototype for an ideal hitter, but a great starting point would be a guy doing exactly what Rizzo is doing right now: exhibiting plate discipline, getting on base, and hitting for power. That’s an impressive trifecta — and, at the core of that offensive profile, lies the key improvements Rizzo has made.
One of the biggest changes for Rizzo this season has been his approach at the plate. As evidenced by career lows in out-of-zone and in-zone swing rates (O-Swing% and Z-Swing%, respectively), he’s offering less often at pitches all around — a trend which is easily visible on his rolling-average graph:
But he’s not being passive merely for the sake of passivity. The key to Rizzo’s refined approach has been pairing this improved selection at the plate with contact rates which began trending upward last season. In the graph below, take particular notice of the blue line to see how he’s clearly setting a new and improved standard for his overall contact rate (Contact%).
Rizzo has never been a typical first baseman masher who strikes out a ton. Instead, his career K% is a perfectly reasonable 17.5%. This year, however, his dual improvement in both patience and contact has, naturally, led to an even more notable propensity for Rizzo to avoid strikeouts and work walks. As a result his K% is down to just 13.2% and his BB% is at a career-high 14.2%.
With two walks and a strikeout during last night’s absurd Cubs/Reds 15-inning marathon, Rizzo now boasts a 42:45 strikeout-to-walk ratio. This makes him one of just five qualified batters to have recorded more walks than strikeouts this season, along with David Ortiz (40:43), Bryce Harper (52:62), Jose Altuve (32:39), and Ben Zobrist (43:48).
The thing that makes Rizzo’s refined approach truly special, however, is that he’s combined it with an increase in power. Often players will see a decline in power when their contact rates tick up or vice versa, but not Rizzo. He’s making more contact and hitting for a career high in power.
You can see the first significant jump in Rizzo’s power occurring during the 2014 season and holding through last season, but this year his power is on an entirely new level. Given the fact that he’s still just 26 years old, it makes sense that Rizzo could just now be beginning to tap into his full power potential.
The Cubs have garnered a lot of attention this season, and for good reason: they have the best record in the major leagues and remain “on pace” for a 106-win season despite an ugly 1-6 stretch last week. The headline-makers on the team, though, are sophomore phenom Kris Bryant and defending Cy Young-winner Jake Arrieta. Free-agent acquisitions Ben Zobrist and Jason Heyward have also been the subject of a great deal of attention. But Anthony Rizzo? He’s old news. He’s been an excellent player on the Cubs for years now. And, yet, he just might be the team’s best hitter.
Note that I said “best hitter” and not “best overall player”. The defensive and base-running value Bryant provides make it hard for a slow first baseman like Rizzo to surpass Bryant’s overall production; however, at the plate, they provide comparable power and Rizzo’s plate discipline gives him an on-base percentage edge over Bryant.
Can Anthony Rizzo be a superstar if he’s not clearly the best player on his own team? Well, he certainly wouldn’t be the first to carry that distinction. Plus, he’s the three-hole hitter on the best team in baseball right now and, it would appear, is only getting better. If he’s able to maintain this combination of power and contact over a full season, it will put Rizzo in position to merit mandatory inclusion in discussions of the best hitters in the league.
Corinne Landrey writes for FanGraphs and MLB.com's Cut4 site. Follow her on Twitter @crashlandrey.
Can someone provide some rationale when setting the rolling graphs regarding what to set the game number at? On FG I’ve seen 5, 10, 15, and 45 game rolling graphs. Anybody have some insight as to a good reason why? Thanks!
It depends on what is being depicted. I bumped up the rolling graphs to 45 games on these charts because I wanted to depict trends across Rizzo’s entire career. If I kept it at 15 games, the chart would be much too busy. Were I looking at the three season default on player graphs, though, a smaller grouping may have been more appropriate. In a related note, there is value in smaller groupings for starting pitchers rolling graphs due to the fact that a 5- or 10- game grouping still constitutes a sizable chunk of a season.
In a number of articles, it’s noted that Player A has done something over the last 30 games, and for comparison’s sake, a 30 game rolling average has been picked…
Also superb piece, Corinne. I’d say Rizzo is the heart and soul of the lineup and the clubhouse. Watching him choke up with 2 strikes is a treat, too, I don’t think too many players do that.
Rizzo is the only hitter who has both a top 30 wRC+ and a BABIP under .300. He’s at .279. Dude can ball. Great article!
Great article, but you are selling him a bit short by labeling a “slow first baseman”. He did steal 17 bases last year and is an excellent (if not exactly speed demon) baserunner. Witness the error last night when he was able to take 2nd.
And the inside the park home run he had today. Granted, it bounced off Billy Hamilton’s face, but interesting timing nonetheless.
I don’t understand why pitchers continue to pitch Rizzo outside when it’s clear that he can’t hit inside pitches.
Here’s his average heatmap: http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=3473&position=1B&ss=2016-01-01&se=2016-12-01&type=4&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=&season=2016
Here’s his slugging heatmap:
http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=3473&position=1B&ss=2016-01-01&se=2016-12-01&type=5&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=&season=2016
And here’s his pitch heatmap:
http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=3473&position=1B&ss=2016-01-01&se=2016-12-01&type=0&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=&season=2016
It isn’t very surprising that he’s hitting so well if pitchers are throwing to his strength.
Because you’re wrong. You’re looking at a half season worth of data in a career that spans 6 MLB seasons and a hitter that’s changed his profile completely. I’ll help you out.
http://www.fangraphs.com/zonegrid.aspx?playerid=3473&position=1B&ss=&se=&type=4&hand=all&count=all&blur=1&grid=10&view=bat&pitch=&season=all
Not to mention any weakness against inside pitches lately is easily covered by getting so cozy with the plate most pitchers aren’t comfortable trying to pitch him inside at all.
No surprise he is second to Espinosa in HBP this season (with 11), after leading the league with 30 last season. No doubt he makes pitchers uncomfortable and the leads to more pitches over the outer part of the plate for him to mash.
This. He hogs the plate like he’s the catcher. And pitchers *can’t* throw outside to him, because he’ll take them out of the park.
Hitters like goldschmidt who really are great don’t resort to cheap tricks like this by making pitchers feel uncomfortable. They cover more or less the whole strike zone with their bat. Rizzo can only cover half the strike zone with his bat and tries to cover the othet half with his body. He isn’t in the same class.
Hitters like goldschmidt who really are great don’t resort to cheap tricks like this by making pitchers feel uncomfortable. They cover more or less the whole strike zone with their bat. Rizzo can only cover half the strike zone with his bat and tries to cover the othet half with his body. He isn’t in the same class.
Has everybody seen the GoT season finale? What are your thoughts?
(figured it was time to end another johnforthegiants snoozefest and liven things up a bit)
There’s no such thing as a cheap trick in baseball. Are pitchers who throw their best pitches more often just using cheap tricks? Or an outfielder playing deep or shallow because that makes them a better defender just using a cheap trick?
Your schtick has really gotten old man, you’ve got to the point where nothing you say can be taken seriously even if you drop your ridiculous biases.
That isn’t the same thing as taking advantage of pitchers feeling bad if they hit you. That’s a guilt trip and has no place in baseball.
Guilt trip? No one is feeling bad when they hit these guys, and Rizzo was hit over 30 times last year so they obviously attempt to pitch inside plenty. He stands in the box that gives him the best chance of success, just like every player in the history of baseball. You’re arguments are somehow getting worse…
Well then he’s going to be in trouble against pitchers who won’t back down. And when the playoffs come around and the games really count, it’s difficult to imagine most pitchers are going to back down.
You must be on to something, johnforthegiants! Clearly, the player with 2.5 years of ~150 wRC+ baseball is going to be subdued entirely if everyone and anyone just pitches inside. You should go get a job as a scout!
It just means he won’t be effective in important games against pitchers who are serious competitors and have good control. Like when he batted .188 in the postseason last year.
Perhaps you have heard of small sample size.
My job is to teach and do research in a research university and review scientific papers for publication and proposals for research funding, so yes, I have (I wonder if you have comparable expertise in statistics). Small sample size only applies when there is reason to believe that the small sample is from a randomly selected subpart of a generally homogeneous data base. In the case of Rizzo’s postseason hitting, there is every reason to believe that this is simply not the case. In the regular season, the marginal utility in terms of batting performance of pitching Rizzo inside is generally offset by the fear of hurting him seriously with a pitch, because regular season games aren’t that important. Therefore, the pitcher basically only has 2/3 of the plate to pitch to, as opposed to other hitters where he can pitch to the whole plate, thus inflating Rizzo’s regular season data. On the other hand, in the postseason, this is not the case, because the marginal utility in terms of batting performance of pitching Rizzo inside is much greater (since the benefit of winning is much greater), so the pitchers take advantage of Rizzo’s hitting weakness. There are therefore two essentially different situations for Rizzo in the regular season and postseason, as the effective size of home plate is different in the two situations, which is not the case for other batters. Therefore the baseline expectation for postseason performance for Rizzo is his postseason data (e.g. batting .188), not his general performance. If you don’t understand this, you can talk to a professional statistician for an explanation.
My profession and background, which on anonymous internet boards is unverifiable and is a topic generally only brought up by trolls to try to boost the perceived value of their own comments, a rhetorical ploy commonly known as expert fallacy or argument from authority, doesn’t matter with respect to this discussion.
What does matter is the obvious confirmation bias you have in your ceaseless posting about how the Cubs aren’t good. You cite data, primarily playoff data, primarily against the Mets in the NLCS, as if it’s definitive proof, in the face of hundreds and thousands of other data points. It is true, the Mets swept the Cubs in the NLCS and it was not a close series. What is also true: The Cubs are 148-91 in the 2015-2016 seasons, best record in baseball. When you include the postseason, that number moves to 152-96, still best in baseball. They lead the majors in WAR last year by FG calculation and are looking like the favorites to do it again this year. Despite your obvious wishes, they are an amazing baseball team. They may or may not win the pennant or the title. But no amount of posts you make on this website will influence that outcome one iota.
If you truly are a researcher, I suggest you sit in on some lectures for behavioral finance, and learn about the types of logical biases someone can contort to see only what they wish to when analyzing data.
I didn’t say the Cubs aren’t good. I said that are extremely overrated. Of course what I’m writing won’t influence anything but also the posts about the Cubs being ‘amazing’ and the FG WAR calculations won’t influence anything either (I know this is very frustrating for Cubs’ fans, but there isn’t a victory parade for the team which ‘wins’ in WAR–it’s significant that you write that they are the ‘favorites’ to lead the majors in WAR as though this is an actual competition). In discussion Rizzo I cited playoff data but not in other posts about the Cubs (there are plenty of reasons that the Cubs are overrated based on their regular season data this year as well, particularly the incredible BABIP luck of their pitchers and the incredibly bad pitching of their division rivals against whom they play a third of their games). And actually when I wrote .188 that was for the whole postseason, not just the Mets’ series (actually for the Mets series he hit comparatively well, .214 (3 singles), for the five games before he hit .167).
Yeah I think you’re right he’s completely overrated and totally gets exposed in playoffs just like these guys
Clayton Kershaw 4.59 ERA
Buster Posey 245/319/324
Mike Trout 083/267/333
Manny Machado 158/238/368
Other than Trout, the situation is different because there isn’t a principled reason for why Kershaw, Posey, and Machado should do worse in the playoffs. With Rizzo there is a principled explanation. With Trout there was a principled explanation, because in preparation for the playoffs the Royals did some research and discovered that at the time Trout was vulnerable to high fastballs (he has since adjusted).
Ah, game theory, the statisticians worst nightmare. Or at least, the BAD statistician’s worst nightmare. There’s nothing like providing a rational and/or analytical explanation for something in the face of sample-based data. That being said, there is a way to test this explanation. What many people who read fangraphs forget too often is that some little percentage of regression-prone statistics are actually ‘luck-based’. They are statistically noise because batters and hitters are consistently adjusting against each other, and the models we currently have are too broad to account for that. This is the reason why a player’s past 25 at-bats are more indicative of how their next at-bat will go than their career’s worth of data (according to a recent Stanford research paper testing and correcting the “hot-hand” theory). Think about every player with an extremely high career BABIP. There is always a rationally plausible reason why, whether they are slap-hitters or just extremely quick sprinters. The reason these players are rare is because they are akin to investors who have “beat the market.” It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen. One form of induction says the phenomenon makes perfect sense, but the statistical form says it’s garbage luck. Who’s to say which form of inductive thinking is best? Even attempting to answer that question is where the bad, hypocritical statistician is born, and is what sports analysis is in danger of becoming filled with.
If you can prove that pitchers pitched inside more frequently to Rizzo in the post-season, you may be on to something. If not, you probably aren’t correct.
As for the Cubs, yea they’re overrated. Their pitchers have been over-performing like crazy for sure, and their division pitchers have been garbage, even when not pitching against the cubs. But they are much better than I expected they would be. The hype about them coming into this season didn’t have a great statistical base. No one expected their strikeout rate to be as low as it has been this first half, and honestly, that’s sort of driven their woba well-beyond what it was last year. I don’t think this will last, and I don’t think they’ll be the best team in baseball by year’s end, but I would bet they’re in the top ten.
C’mon, obviously i’m talking about since moved much closer to the plate recently. The stats from before then aren’t relevant.
C’mon be serious. Obviously i’m talking about since he moved much closer to the plate recently. The data before that aren’t relevant.
Dude, go away.
Rizzo!!! You’re sooo good! And yet your contract is soooo bad. Oh well.
Hey,Lulz, thumbs down? y’all silly. Ricketts lovers? Rizzo is the man. Does great work for cancer patients. His contract is owner friendly, and yet another example of a billionaire being able to leverage service time rules that encourage (relatively) not rich young players to settle for much less money (and control over their careers).
Thumbs up for the working class, Thumbs down for billionaires getting a larger slice!
Bwhahahahahahha
a little ott, but yes.
I mean, Rizzo is still making millions of dollars every year. I wouldn’t call him “working class.” Players sign team friendly deals because the team’s control over that player gives them leverage in negotiations; Rizzo chose the security of this extension over gambling on himself both turning into a star and staying healthy until free agency.
And most importantly, Rizzo only getting a measly $41 million over 7 years isn’t some example of horrible exploitation by a rich owner. Teams lock players into these deals to conserve payroll space in the interest of roster building flexibility. Sure, some owners are cheap, comparatively – they are businessmen, it’s their job. But if teams just decided to hand out a ton of money to every good player because, hell, they deserve it, then they wouldn’t be able to build a team well. I’d rather my ownership worry about creating a great team than about slighting Anthony Rizzo by giving him millions of dollars a year and guaranteeing he will continue to make that money even if his leg is amputated and he never plays baseball again.
But would you trade Rizzo for Goldschmidt straight-up?
Absolutely not. It’s not because Rizzo is better than Goldschmidt. (I’m not sure who’s better, actually.) But Rizzo’s contract is more team friendly in every basically every possible way.
What’s actually visible is that Rizzo has started his third straight season with very low swing rates. In 2014 and 2015 he swung more than his career rates both inside and outside the zone down the stretch.
Let’s see if the approach persists the whole season, or if Rizzo adjusts back to swinging more.
It’s cool that we saw an article much like this last June. Rizzo has gone ahead and made those improvements over again, it seems.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/anthony-rizzo-now-featuring-an-elite-strikeout-rate/