Archive for Teams

Young Tiger Nick Castellanos has two seasons under his belt and hasn’t yet turned 24. He’s shown flashes of the talent he was supposed to have as a top prospect, but he’s on the wrong side of the leaderboards so far. The second half had some good news for him, particularly when it came to his plate discipline, but it’s fair to wonder how important he will be for Detroit.

So far he’s been a net negative. Can he turn that around in a big way this upcoming season?

Only five regulars have been worse over the last two years. And it’s worse than that, since most of the guys ahead of him on the list are no longer regulars. Matt Dominguez (released), Billy Butler (DH), Jay Bruce (future DH?), Ryan Howard (future DH / future release candidate), and Dayan Viciedo (released) aren’t good company to keep.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the opening minutes of his great documentary Baseball, Ken Burns characterizes the sport in terms that are both pleasing on their own and also relevant to yesterday’s post regarding Mike Trout‘s peak, and now today’s on Clayton Kershaw‘s:

“It is a haunted game, in which every player is measured against the ghosts of all who have gone before. Most of all, it is about time, and timelessness.”

It’s a much more succinct and effective way of making the point I attempted to make yesterday, in that today’s players don’t yet have the luxury of having a legacy, in turn making it tough to contextualize their potential place in history while that legacy is still being built. Looking at what today’s players accomplished in their primes, relative to the primes of the ghosts (both figurative and literal) who have gone before can help us do that.

Trout’s place in history has been well documented and updated since the completion of his 10-win rookie season. For the better part of three years now, you’ve been hearing all types of Trout stats, included with some sort of “under __” age filter that places him alongside the game’s all-time greats like Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays for his production, relative to his age. It’s been hard to avoid the company which Trout has kept.

With Kershaw, seems we haven’t heard that as much. Part of it, likely, is just Trout stealing the thunder. Part of it, likely, is that Kershaw didn’t begin truly dominating until his age-23 season, so the fun “under-21” stats weren’t as fun. Part of it, perhaps, is the ridiculous Kershaw postseason narrative. Probably the biggest part of it is just that pitchers are tougher to compare across generations, and it might be easier to “dismiss” the historic nature of what Kershaw has done by recognizing that it’s happened during one of the most depressed run environments the live-ball era has ever seen.

Even with the run environment considered, what Kershaw has done these past five seasons is absolutely historic.

Trout’s “peak” — his first four seasons in the Majors — already ranks as one of the 10 greatest peaks by a position player in baseball history. He’s not alone. Kershaw is currently in the midst of a top-10 all-time peak himself. We’re lucky enough to experience them both.

Read the rest of this entry »

The playoffs are over, and as balls and strikes go, the tournament wasn’t overly controversial. There were some misses, sure. There was that called strike against Ben Revere at nearly the worst possible time. That wasn’t great, and I’m sure there are some Blue Jays fans who are still fuming. Shortly before that, there was a similar called strike against Dioner Navarro. Rough inning. As for called balls, the Royals didn’t love that one called for Jose Bautista in a full count. There are always going to be arguments, since non-lasered humans are expected to call the strike zone with laser-like precision, but these playoffs could’ve been worse. The controversial calls were at least close to the borders. The calls were forgivable.

The controversial calls aren’t always close to the borders. Sometimes the calls are just bad. Like, take this called ball — according to PITCHf/x, this was 1.3 inches from the center of the strike zone at the front of home plate. Imagine if this had taken place in the playoffs, and led to a rally?

1.3 inches. That means part of the baseball passed through the very center of the zone. Doesn’t seem like a ball like that should ever take place. And this wasn’t even the worst called ball of the season. No, that one was thrown by Jeff Samardzija, literally one day later, on August 19. Samardzija’s called ball was measured at 1.2 inches from the center of the strike zone.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Nationals were psychologically prepared to replace Matt Williams with Bud Black. But according to reports, they were less financially prepared to do that, so now they’re actually replacing Williams with Dusty Baker. For the organization, it’s something of an embarrassing turn, not because they ended up with Baker, but because they acted too cheaply to get their first choice. But, whatever, that’s already in the past. What matters now is Baker. And few managers and managerial candidates can provoke so strong a fan reaction. When it comes to Dusty Baker, people have feelings.

For sure, there are those who point to his record, his experience and history of winning. He’s a proven manager, which Matt Williams most certainly was not. Yet Baker also has another reputation. When word started to spread that he was going to Washington, a common response was that it would be bad news for the pitching staff. Baker is forever followed by references to Kerry Wood and Mark Prior, and it’s the sort of thing he clearly can’t out-run. To so many people, Baker is a pitcher-destroyer. Even among those who don’t really feel that way, everyone’s familiar with the rep.

It should be understood that nothing is ever simple. And it should be understood that behavior changes. Dusty Baker is going to manage the Washington Nationals. I don’t see a convincing argument for why that’s a bad thing.

Read the rest of this entry »

We’ve gone exactly one day without baseball, so it’s probably time to write another post about Mike Trout.

The framing device I used the first time I wrote this post was LeBron James. I’m a Cavaliers fan, and when I’d written the post, LeBron James played for the Miami Heat and I didn’t think I’d ever see him play for Cleveland again. When LeBron first left for Miami, I was sad, of course, but the initial sadness was simply “my favorite team is bad again.” The later sadness, the sadness that stuck, was the crippling fear that I’d taken James’ time in Cleveland, his truly historic time, for granted. That I hadn’t appreciated him enough. That I’d gotten too used to how incredible he was, rather than being thankful each and every day that he existed, and that I could watch him do the things he does, feeling pride that he represented my city. The thing about realizing you took something special for granted is, you almost never get another chance to re-do it. I got lucky with LeBron.

Mike Trout just posted another nine-win season, and he’s likely to finish as runner-up MVP yet again. Another indisputably historic season that won’t be recognized as such at year’s end. It’s not anyone’s fault, really. The first year, Miguel Cabrera won a freaking Triple Crown. The next year, he had an even better season. Then Trout had his “worst” year yet and finally got his MVP. This year, Josh Donaldson will absolutely deserve the MVP he most likely wins. More than one person can, and usually does, deserve it, after all.

It feels like Bryce Harper helped take some of the shine away from Trout this season. Perhaps rightfully so. But there should be enough shine to go around for the both of them. Not to say Trout goes unappreciated. Fans of the game recognize that he’s special. They recognize Harper is special. But do we appreciate them enough? Is it possible to appreciate them enough? Baseball hasn’t seen a pairing like Trout and Harper since Mays and Mantle in the mid-50’s and, no, that’s not an exaggeration. Maybe I’m overstating it, but I guess I’m just terrified that, down the road, once the inevitable darkness that is Father Time has shown up and done his bidding on Trout and Harper, that too many people will look back at what we once had the same way I’d looked back on LeBron before I was lucky enough to be given a second chance. Wondering why they didn’t go to more games, wondering why they took something so special for granted. See Mike Trout play as often as you can. Watch a few Angels games on television, even if you’re not a fan. Drive an hour or two to a ballpark, if you have to.

One of the great things about modern baseball statistics is the ability to compare across generations. It’s what makes wRC+ so invaluable. Fifty percent better than league average will always be fifty percent better than league average. Nine Wins Above Replacement now is worth the same as Nine Wins Above Replacement in 1940. The greats of years past have a legacy. The players of our age don’t yet have that and, on the fly, it can be hard to contextualize what the accomplishments of today’s players mean. Where they stand in the bigger picture, and what their eventual legacy may become.
Read the rest of this entry »

Some of the nausea that comes with fandom begins as a terrible question in the back of your head. Could this be their best chance? Could this be their only shot? What if things fall apart next year? Do I trust the team’s front office to do the right things to keep this train on the tracks?

It is those nervous bubbles, those heartaches, those feelings of self-doubt that make the eventual win so amazing. We can’t do away with them or we lose some of the engine of future pleasure.

But if you’re a Mets fan, right now you’re left to wallow in those negative thoughts. Those triumphs that came before the World Series have faded quickly. You’re left in the dark, hoping that the hot stove provides light and warmth, and that hope is your friend and not a trick in the night, leading you astray.

So… can the Mets make it back?

Read the rest of this entry »

I promise we’ll move on any moment now. The Royals are champions, but we’ve known that for a couple days, and fans of 29 other teams are ready to look forward. There’s talk about qualifying offers. Players declaring free agency. The offseason is beginning, and the offseason is fun to think about, because if they handle the offseason right, then your team can be the next team people don’t want to hear about anymore a few days after the World Series. If hope springs eternal in March, it begins welling up in November. Baseball’s weird calendar is already flipping.

So pretty soon we’ll talk about other stuff. Important events are right around the corner. But the World Series just ended. Like, two days ago, there was still baseball, and the Royals were as entertaining as any team I’ve seen in forever. Before I say goodbye to them, then, I want to re-visit last week’s poll. I don’t always re-visit the polls I post, but this one, I got particularly excited about. And the results didn’t let me down.

Read the rest of this entry »

There were two big storylines leading up to the World Series: the unrivaled ability of the Kansas City Royals to make contact on offense, and the ability of the Mets’ young power arms. The main battle of the Fall Classic, it seemed, would be between those two opposing forces, and whichever won out over the other very well might meaningfully shift the series. Now, looking back on the five games of the Royals’ 2015 Championship, something is apparent in the outcome of that much-storied battle: Mets pitchers struggled mightily to put Royals hitters away when they had two-strike counts.

We know the 2015 Royals didn’t strike out a lot: they had the lowest strikeout rate in the majors during the regular season by a wide margin (15.9%; the next-closest team was the Oakland A’s, at 18.1%). Knowing that fact, we could look at their trend of two-strike success in the World Series as a continuation of that regular-season ability. And, while we should give the Royals a lot of credit for the quality of their at-bats (we’ll see later how their ability to foul balls off contributed to what we’re discussing), Mets pitchers also showed a detrimental tendency when the count was in their favor: they threw too many pitches in the strike zone.

First, lets understand the specifics of this Royals’ plate approach. Not only did they make contact more than almost any other team in the major leagues – their 81.8% contact rate was second only to the A’s at 81.9% — but they swung at more pitches out of the strike zone than any other team. That’s the main reason they saw the lowest rate of pitches in the zone during 2015. The thought process is simple: if a team shows that it will chase pitches, why bother throwing them strikes?

Take a look at a quick summary of their major league ranks for overall contact, swings at pitches outside of the strike zone (O-Swing%), and pitches in the strike zone (Zone%) for 2015:

This is who the 2015 Royals were: the free-swinging, contact-oriented team we’ve read about for the past month. Imagining yourself as an opposing pitcher, it might make sense to approach them with some of those traits in mind: perhaps you would throw more pitches out of the zone, get them to chase as much as possible, and hope that the majority of contact they generated would be weak because of the lack of quality pitches to hit.

However, Mets pitchers had a difficult time executing that game plan effectively during the World Series. Let’s take a look at a few heat maps from Baseball Savant to get an idea of some of the issues they faced putting Royals hitters away. We’re just going to focus on counts in which the pitcher was ahead with two strikes: 0-2 and 1-2 counts. First, here’s where Mets pitchers attacked their opponents during the NLDS & NLCS vs. the World Series in 0-2/1-2 counts:

There are obviously a different number of pitches between the two images, but we can see that the NLDS and NLCS image has far more pitches out of the zone, especially low and away to right-handed hitters. This makes sense: in 0-2 and 1-2 counts, a pitcher wants to throw pitches out of the zone. They want to get hitters to chase, and they can waste pitches trying to do that because the count is in their favor. The World Series image, however, has a lot of red (meaning a higher frequency of pitches in that location) on pitches up and over the heart of the plate. This, theoretically, is not want you want to be doing in 0-2 and 1-2 counts.

Read the rest on Just a Bit Outside.

The Royals — the 2015 MLB champion Royals — were historically clutch. If you paid even any attention at all, you probably don’t learn anything from that sentence. It’s so obviously true it might as well be left unsaid, like “that pizza was delicious” or “I wish we didn’t get lost.” Being clutch became the Royals’ whole thing, all the way through erasing a ninth-inning deficit in the last game they played. But, look: I’ve got data. I’m going to give it to you. You can’t stop me from doing this. By the time you’re reading this post, it’s already done.

Somewhere around the middle of September, I wrote a post for JABO talking about how the Cardinals had been historically clutch. For the Cardinals, the strength had been run prevention, above and beyond what one would’ve expected just from their already strong overall performance. Right here, I’m going to follow a similar template, since now that everything’s over, it feels worthwhile to consider the final numbers. The Cardinals, at one point, looked like the clutchiest team in the league. They ultimately surrendered their lead. (note: pretty unclutch of them) (second note: typical Royals)

Read the rest of this entry »

Over the past two seasons, the Royals have gained a reputation for smart baserunning, lethal relief pitching, a contact-heavy offensive approach and excellent defense. Now that they’ve appeared in two consecutive World Series and are the reigning champions of baseball, it’s time for other teams to recognize the value in that formula and do the only thing they can: copy them! Home runs are out. Ace pitchers are out. It’s singles and relievers from here on out, folks. Or until a different team wins next season.

Copying the Royals isn’t too difficult in theory because they have such a well-defined style of play. It’s all those things I just mentioned in the first sentence. If you were watching the World Series you probably noticed how the announcers talked on and on about how the Royals never strike out, play great defense, run the bases with aplomb, and possess a bullpen full of great relievers. So now that the goal is clear, and the means are known. Who is in the best position to copy the Royals?

Read the rest of this entry »