As one would expect, records and milestones often reflect the eras in which they’re achieved. Pitching records tend to be set in low-offense eras, while offensive milestones rack up more quickly at times when runs are plentiful. As the game ebbs and flows, certain benchmarks that are achievable in one era become far more difficult, or even impossible, in another. One of these achievements, which has long fascinated fans, is hitting .400. Even as batting average became a less relevant number in the post-Deadball era (and even less so as front offices gravitated toward other metrics 75 years later), baseball observers have still rooted for someone to hit .400. I’m one of them; not everything that’s fun has to be an amazing analytical tool, and vice-versa. Hits are, for lack of a better word, cool, and the ability to rack up value primarily via batting average has become far rarer than it used to be. And if hits are cool, Luis Arraez is in super-rad territory, as the Marlins second baseman is currently sitting at .398 as we approach the season’s halfway mark.

Whether you think the most recent .400 hitter was Ted Williams, who put up a .406 average in 1941, or Josh Gibson, who put up an impressive .466 for the Homestead Grays in 69 games a couple of years later, there are very few baseball fans remaining who have a living memory of a .400 hitter. After the Splendid Splinter hit .388 in 1957, it was another 20 years until anyone came that close (Rod Carew in 1977). There were always scattered attempts, such as George Brett‘s effort to sneak up to .400 when he hit a stunning .421 in the second half of the 1980 season (he ran out of calendar, finishing at .390). The offensive outburst of the 1990s wasn’t just in home runs, but in batting average as well, and there was another mini-run of .400 attempts. From 1993 through 2000, there were a surprising number of first-half hitters above .380: Tony Gwynn (twice), Larry Walker, Nomar Garciaparra, John Olerud, Darin Erstad, Todd Helton, Frank Thomas, and Paul O’Neill. Nobody’s been at .380 in the first half more recently, and since 2010, only Justin Turner’s gone into the All-Star break with a batting average north of .370. Read the rest of this entry »

The Guardians made a catching change heading into the weekend, designating veteran Mike Zunino for assignment and calling up prospect Bo Naylor from Triple-A Columbus to take his place. Zunino, signed this past offseason, hit .177/.271/.306 in 42 games in Cleveland, “good” enough for a 63 wRC+ and -0.1 WAR. Naylor, in his second go of Triple-A, is having a season similar to last one, hitting .254/.393/.498 with 13 homers in 60 games, giving him a wRC+ of 122.

Signed to a one-year, $6 million contract this past offseason, Zunino was never intended to be a long-term option for the Guardians. He’s always been a maddingly inconsistent hitter from year to year, oscillating between .850-OPS and .550-OPS seasons, and he missed nearly half of 2022 due to thoracic outlet syndrome. But the hope was that he’d be good enough to hold down the fort long enough for Naylor to get more time behind the plate in the minors.

Zunino’s offense didn’t initially seem all that crucial to his continued employment. Over the last decade, Cleveland has been more than happy to employ catchers who struggle with the bat, so long as said catcher was at least more than competent defensively. The last time Cleveland’s backstops combined for a wRC+ of even 90 was 2014, during the early stages of the Yan Gomes residency. This was a noted shift from the previous decade, when the organization took the opposite approach, with defensively challenged catchers like Victor Martinez and Carlos Santana making their money with their bats. Despite the absymal offense, if Zunino’s defense this season had been at the levels of his time with the Mariners, Naylor would still be hanging out in the state capital. Read the rest of this entry »

Player & Blog Search
Support FanGraphs
Fantasy
Blogs
Projections
Scores
Standings
Leaders
Teams
RosterResource
Prospects
Glossary
Dan
LIVE CHAT: Dan Szymborski is chatting now.
Chat RSS Feed:
https://www.jotcast.com/chatTranscript.xml?id=16029

12:02

Dan Szymborski: GafternooN!

12:05

Dan Szymborski: Carson Roccaforte is one of the top of my head

12:06

Dan Szymborski: Cam Fisher has really fun power

12:06

Dan Szymborski: but these are probably Eric questions

12:06

Dan Szymborski: I’m not an amateur draft guru

Read the rest of this entry »

When making any prediction for a young player, dealing with minor league data in an absolute necessity. This still remains a relatively new thing in baseball’s history, with little attention given to minor league stats until Bill James introduced his method of Major League Equivalency in the 1985 Baseball Abstract. Twenty-five years ago, I wrote one of the first things of mine to ever hit the broader internet, a quick primer on how to calculate James’ MLEs. Working with the data was immensely difficult at the time, and even worse when James was developing MLEs. There was no central repository of minor league stats, and just getting the current year was highly difficult; on the young internet of the time, you basically had to copy and paste from Baseball America’s basic data. For past years, there was just about nothing outside of what you could get from STATS. As a youngster, I pretty much spidered the data off of STATS on AOL, which surprisingly had the most data available publicly at the time.

Sabermetrics was a more difficult task back then. Even when Baseball-Reference initially became the first actually usable website, powered by the Lahman database, for the first few years, stats were updated after the season. There was no minor league data there, or anywhere, really. That improved in subsequent seasons, and with more data than James had to work with, people such as Clay Davenport, Voros McCracken, and myself were able to put together our own systems. ZiPS never becomes a thing without minor league data to work on to make the inputs properly. Since James is the one that broke ground, I still call the ZiPS translations zMLEs. These days, I have minor league translations going all the way back to the 1950s.

As we approach midseason, many of the current minor league translations in the upper minors have become highly interesting the farther we get from Small Sample Shenanigans. I wanted to take the opportunity to highlight some of the numbers with relevance to the rest of the major league season. Remember: minor league translations are not actual predictions but should be treated like any other line of play, with the same possible pitfalls, the same need for context, and the same opportunity to be misleading in certain ways, such as freak BABIP totals (though ZiPS tries to adjust for the last one). All these lines are adjusted to the context of the parent club’s home park and 2023’s level of offense in the majors. All translations are through Monday’s games. Read the rest of this entry »

As a measure to improve baseball for the average fan — or even the decidedly non-average fans who frequent our pages — I think the pitch clock has been a resounding success. Trimming almost half an hour from the length of games hasn’t diminished baseball itself, with the cutting room floor mainly littered with the things that take place in between the action. Now, you can argue that we’ve also eliminated some of the dramatic tension from crucial situations in important games. But for every high-stakes matchup between two great players in a big moment, there were a multitude of unimportant ones stretched out endlessly by a parade of uniform readjustments and crotch reconfigurations. I enjoy having a leisurely Campari and soda with a friend while waiting for dinner, but I certainly don’t want to do that for every meal, and if I could chop down cocktail hour to get my food more quickly, I’d happily find other moments for social bonding.

Of course, game length isn’t the only consideration when assessing the pitch clock. I’m frequently asked in my chats if I think a given pitcher’s underperformance relative to expectation can be attributed to the clock. It can’t feel great to do a job for a number of years and suddenly experience such a monumental change in how you go about executing it. Steve Trachsel ain’t punching no time clock!

Another big question is whether the pitch clock, which can result in mechanical changes, could have an effect on injuries, a subject Will Sammon, Brittany Ghiroli and Eno Sarris explored for The Athletic after a high injury rate in April. While we obviously don’t have enough data to reach a verdict on the long-term effects of the clock (and things like Tommy John surgery count are still going to involve relatively small samples), as we near the halfway point of the season, we do have enough information to look at how the data are shaking out and arrive at some kind of preliminary conclusion about what’s going on. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the strange things about projecting baseball players is that even results themselves are small sample sizes. Full seasons result in specific numbers that have minimal predictive value, such as BABIP for pitchers. The predictive value isn’t literally zero — individual seasons form much of the basis of projections, whether math-y ones like ZiPS or simply our personal opinions on how good a player is — but we have to develop tools that improve our ability to explain some of these stats. It’s not enough to know that the number of home runs allowed by a pitcher is volatile; we need to know how and why pitchers allow homers beyond a general sense of pitching poorly or being Jordan Lyles.

Data like that which StatCast provides gives us the ability to get at what’s more elemental, such as exit velocities and launch angles and the like — things that are in themselves more predictive than their end products (the number of homers). StatCast has its own implementation of this kind of exercise in its various “x” stats. ZiPS uses slightly different models with a similar purpose, which I’ve dubbed zStats. (I’m going to make you guess what the z stands for!) The differences in the models can be significant. For example, when talking about grounders, balls hit directly toward the second base bag became singles 48.7% of the time from 2012 to 2019, with 51.0% outs and 0.2% doubles. But grounders hit 16 degrees to the “left” of the bag only became hits 10.6% of the time over the same stretch, while toward the second base side, it was 9.8%. ZiPS uses data like sprint speed when calculating hitter BABIP, because how fast a player is has an effect on BABIP and extra-base hits. Read the rest of this entry »

12:00

Dan Szymborski: It is time. A time. For chats.

12:00

Dan Szymborski: Or at least once!

12:00

Dan Szymborski: I got a DM from someone really annoyed I referred to him as Ellraiser

12:01

Dan Szymborski: It was always iffy if this was the year he was going to contribute, he has huge upside, but the short-term was very uncertian

Read the rest of this entry »

The prospect ranks are as high as an elephant’s eye at Castellini Farms. The Reds may have entered this rebuilding cycle with all the grace of an angry cat trying to get a cereal box off its head (as opposed to the awkward toe-dipping of the last go-around), but through trades and their own scouting, they’ve accumulated an impressive amount of talent in the minors. By our in-progress farm system rankings, only the Baltimore Orioles place higher for the 2023 season. Mean ol’ Grandpa ZiPS agrees; the Reds had seven prospects on the preseason ZiPS Top 100, a total that trailed only the Guardians and the O’s. Baltimore and Cincinnati combined seem to have about 80% of the shortstop prospects in baseball.

Whether you go by human or machine, no Red ranked more highly this winter than Elly De La Cruz, who was no. 6 (60 FV) on the prospect team’s Top 100 and no. 15 on the ZiPS list. After an impressive 2021 full-season debut, De La Cruz cranked things up a notch in 2022, hitting 28 homers and slugging .586 combined across High- and Double-A despite only being 20 years old. Questions still remain about his long-term defensive position, but his bat has proved to be even more potent for Triple-A Louisville, as he hit 12 home runs in a mere 38 games and is already two-thirds of the way to last year’s walk total. He’s responsible for the International League’s ERA going up by nearly half a run a game from 2022! OK, I made that last bit up, but you had to actually think about it for a full second before you smelled burning khaki. Read the rest of this entry »

The Pirates are having a relatively successful 2023, as the team has defied expectations and is currently in second place in the NL Central, just a half-game behind the first-place Brewers. The record on the field isn’t the only thing coming up Pirate this year: the team successfully signed Bryan Reynolds to an eight-year, $106.75 million contract extension, ending the eternal and well-founded speculation about which team the Bucs would trade him to and when. With Ke’Bryan Hayes already signed to a $70 million extension — then the largest dollar figure for a contract in franchise history — Pittsburgh has discussed locking up two other foundational talents, Mitch Keller and Oneil Cruz.

Despite the Pirates signing a nine-figure deal with Reynolds, it would be a mistake to assume that it foreshadows a new era in team spending that gets them into the next tier up in the spending ranks. The last time they finished even 20th in baseball in payroll was 20 years ago, in 2003, and they’re usually in the bottom five. There they will stay, but if they spend a good proportion of that self-limited budget on their best young talent, they get their best shots at the NL Central and don’t explicitly look like a stop for young players between Triple-A and the majors. To manage this, Pittsburgh has to sign its young players sooner rather than later, and absorb additional risk.

Of these two players, Keller’s extension is probably the more urgent matter to attend to. The least expensive time to sign him would have been a few years ago, when he was struggling to adjust to the majors and the Pirates could, as noted above, defray some of the cost by taking on that additional risk that he’d never develop. Keller is eligible to hit free agency after the 2025 season, so there’s a real ticking clock here; the longer the Pirates take to come to an agreement, the less financial reason their ace has to take one and the less talent would come to Pittsburgh in the event of a trade. Now that Keller’s breakout appears to be a reality and not a fluke or merely speculation about the future, he has a lot more financial leverage than he did a year ago.

While Keller worked out most of his remaining command issues last season, he still suffered a bit from having strikeout stuff but not being great at actually collecting those Ks. The full version of ZiPS still sees his improved swinging-strike rate not supporting the impressive 50% bump in his overall strikeout rate, but it does agree that his performance in 2023 in this department represents real and significant improvement. As such, Keller has one of the biggest bumps among pitchers from his preseason long-term projection. Even the simpler in-season projection version of ZiPS still has him finishing in the top five in the NL in WAR, behind just Zac Gallen, Zack Wheeler, Spencer Strider, and Logan Webb.

Perhaps the most striking example of Keller’s continued breakout is just how improved his cohort of most similar past pitchers is. Here are the top 50 pitchers in ZiPS similarity (with the specific year at which their baseline is similar) for Keller both before 2023 and now:

You will note that I didn’t label which column was which, because I’m just that confident that you’ll know in about a half-second of glancing which list is the better one!

In sum, ZiPS suggests a fair six-year deal right now would be six years, $116 million:

This reflects the fact that he has two more years of arbitration; a projected offer as a free agent would be six years, $153 million, or seven years, $171 million.

Despite being a shortstop — for now at least — rather than a pitcher, Cruz is the riskier of the pair. He’s less established in the majors than Keller and is currently on the IL with a fractured ankle, making a projection that much trickier. But when agreeing to a mutually beneficial contract, you basically have to pay either in currency or risk, and if the Pirates don’t want to give up a ton of the former, they’ll have to be willing to pay by taking on a bunch of the latter. Even if the current injury makes the atmosphere a little too much like gambling for either side of the negotiations, a healthy Cruz — which is expected to be a thing sometime around August — should be enough to kickstart talks.

Cruz was one of my breakout picks this year, and while the ankle means that’s one that I’m unlikely to get right, he still has a great deal of upside with his game-changing power. And his contact issues, while concerning, are at least a problem that you can pinpoint; it only take a few percentage points of a bump in contact rate for ZiPS to start projecting him with Javier Báez’s prime. Cruz had already shown an uptick in his nine games this year, walking seven times as his contact rate hit 70%. Nine games is a pitifully small sample size, even for less volatile numbers, but it’s certainly better than those numbers going in the opposite direction!

Cruz has more upside than Hayes does, but the latter is healthy and closer to his potential than the former is to his higher potential, and the contract projection comes out similarly to the extension that Hayes signed: a seven-year, $67 million extension that delays Cruz’s free agency by two years.

Will contracts like these single-handedly make the Pirates a perennial contender? No, but signing young players to long-term deals at least gives them the path to long-term relevance in the NL Central and gives a fanbase that’s been beaten up for 30 years some hope that it’ll get to see PNC Park be the long-term home for the team’s core rather than a set of turnstiles.

One of the strange things about projecting baseball players is that even results themselves are small sample sizes. Full seasons result in specific numbers that have minimal predictive value, such as BABIP for pitchers. The predictive value isn’t literally zero — individual seasons form much of the basis of projections, whether math-y ones in something like ZiPS or simply personal opinions on how good a player is — but we have to develop tools that improve our ability to explain some of these stats. It’s not enough to know that the number of homers allowed by a pitcher is volatile; we need to know how and why pitchers allow homers beyond a general sense of pitching poorly or being Jordan Lyles.

Data like that what StatCast provides gives us the ability to get what is more elemental, such as exit velocities and launch angles and the like — things that are in themselves more predictive than their end products (the number of homers). StatCast has its own implementation of this kind of exercise in the various “x” stats. ZiPS uses slightly different models with a similar purpose, which I’ve dubbed zStats. (I’m going to make you guess what the z stands for!) The differences in the models can be significant. For example: when talking about grounders, balls hit directly toward the second base bag became singles 48.7% of the time from 2012 to ’19, with 51.0% outs and 0.2% doubles. But grounders hit 16 degrees to the “left” of the bag, over the same time period, only became hits 10.6% of the time and toward the second base side, 9.8%. ZiPS uses data like sprint speed when calculating hitter BABIP, because how fast a player is has an effect on BABIP and extra-base hits.

ZiPS doesn’t discard actual stats; the actual models all improve from knowing the actual numbers in addition to the zStats. For data on how zStats relate to actual stats, I’ve talked more about this here and here.

But you’re here to see the numbers themselves, not the exposition, so let’s star wipe to the main storyline. Read the rest of this entry »