Contact Quality: Just a Part of the Puzzle, 2014 NL Pitchers

In the recent past, we’ve discussed many of the various aspects of the emerging granular batted-ball velocity/exit angle data that is becoming more pervasive in the game today. It’s now the starting pitchers’ turn, as we look at the best and worst contact managers in the game in 2014. Last week, we looked at the American League; today, it’s the National League’s turn. There weren’t many surprises among the AL leaders and laggards, but there appear to have been a couple in the senior circuit.

With the advent of StatCast, batted-ball exit speed/angle data has finally begun to wend its way into the public domain. Though it is very valuable information, one must resist the temptation to rank offensive players, let alone pitchers, solely by their ability to hit the ball hard, as there is a whole lot else to take into consideration. Hitters’ BABIPs are driven by batted-ball authority; with pitchers, the relationship can be much more subtle. This is not to say, however, that there aren’t pitchers at both ends of the contact-management spectrum with entrenched tendencies that drive their overall games.

Most BIP type frequencies (pop ups, fly balls, grounders) correlate very strongly from year to year. Line-drive rates are much more random, though there are outliers on either end of the spectrum who have developed long-term tendencies. BIP authority allowed by pitchers on various batted-ball types correlates much less strongly, though again, there are some outliers — especially with respect to ground-ball authority — who have developed enduring abilities to limit contact authority.

Below is a list of the top-five NL pitcher contact scores for 2014 among the 43 qualifiers for the ERA title. This is a measure of contact quality which is scaled to a league average of 100. Every one of each pitcher’s batted balls allowed was essentially placed in a neutral environment, and credited with MLB average performance based on its speed and vertical and horizontal angles off of the bat:

	C SCORE	W/K & BB	NL RANK	ACT ERA	NL RANK
Garza	74	81	5	99	28
Kershaw	75	52	1	48	1
Fister	77	82	8	66	4
Cueto	81	72	2	61	2
F.Liriano	82	84	9	92	17

Each pitcher’s contact score (denoted as C Score) is listed in the first column. Their Ks and BBs are added back in the second column, yielding an overall adjusted production score, assuming a neutral environment, which I like to call the pitcher’s “tru” ERA. The third column lists their NL rank in that category, among the 43 ERA qualifiers. The fourth column lists their actual ERA relative to the league, and the fifth and last column lists their NL rank in that category.

For each player, we’ll peel back a couple layers and discuss why his contact score is so strong. It might not just be authority allowed; it could be line-drive infrequency, pop-up or ground-ball frequency, or any one of a number of other factors. We’ll also discuss any significant variations between their contact quality allowed and their overall actual performance.

1 – Matt Garza – Well, this would have to be considered surprise #1. Garza’s 2014 strong contact-management performance was driven by a high pop-up (82nd percentile) and a low liner rate (19th percentile). Historically, he has exhibited a strong fly-ball tendency, so the pop ups were not a surprise. The low liner rate, however, was very likely a fluke. Prior to 2014, he had posted liner rate percentile ranks of 70 or higher in three of the four previous seasons, and he’s well on his way to doing so again in 2015. He managed grounder authority extremely well last season, averaging over two standard deviations lower than NL average, while his average fly-ball and liner authority allowed were both in the average range. He was able to keep fly balls in the middle of the field last season, further aiding his cause, but that can’t be counted upon moving forward. With his K and BB rates trending in the wrong directions of late, he will be heavily dependent on contact management for success moving forward and, unfortunately, a number of the reasons for his 2014 success were of the more random variety.

2 – Clayton Kershaw – Combine elite K and BB skills with elite contact management ability, and the result simply isn’t fair. There aren’t too many pitchers who can both induce more than their share of pop ups (88th percentile in 2014) and grounders (74th). He also didn’t allow many liners (32nd percentile), and might just be one of the few hurlers with a true ability to avoid them, as he has been at or below that level in three of the last four seasons. He choked batted-ball authority as well in 2014, with his average liner authority allowed over two, and his average grounder authority over one full standard deviation(s) below NL average. His average fly-ball authority allowed was in the average range. Thus far in 2015, his “subpar” results have been keyed by a high liner rate allowed; don’t sweat it, it will regress, and all the other greatness remains in place. Kershaw is still Kershaw.

3 – Doug Fister – Fister’s strong 2014 contact-management performance was driven by a minuscule liner rate allowed, in the second percentile. He’s no Kershaw, however; he has allowed very high liner rates in the past, and was doing so this season before going on the disabled list with a flexor strain. Authority-wise, he averaged over a half standard deviation lower than NL average with regard to both fly-ball and liner velocity in 2014, while his average grounder authority allowed was in the average range. He once possessed a strong grounder tendency, but that has largely disappeared over the past two seasons, in conjunction with a plunge in his K rate. There are plenty of orange to red flags here that Nats’ fans have to hope are simply injury-related.

4 – Johnny Cueto – Like Fister, Cueto rode a low liner rate (10th percentile) to contact-management success in 2014. Unlike him, however, there are many other building blocks in place to support long-term success in this area. Cueto has maintained at least that low a liner rate in two of the last three seasons, so it just might be a real skill. He also manages the authority of all types of contact extremely well: his average grounder authority allowed was over two, and his average fly-ball and liner authority allowed was over a full standard deviation(s) below NL average. Though his liner rate is up thus far in 2015, his overall contact-management ability is very real, and should support a healthy free agent payday this fall.

5 – Francisco Liriano – On the positive side with regard to contact management, Liriano has always generated plenty of grounders (75th percentile in 2014, 65th or higher in 4 of last 5 seasons). He also chokes authority with regard to all batted-ball types, yielding average fly-ball authority of over two, and grounder and liner authority of over one full standard deviation(s) lower than NL average. There is one fairly significant blemish, however, as he tends to allow high liner rates. This was not the case in 2014 (37th percentile), allowing him to make this top five, but his liner rate percentile rank has been 64 or higher in four of the last six seasons, and is quite high thus far in 2015. Oh, if this guy could cut his walks and liners allowed….

Three of the pitchers listed above, Kershaw, Cueto and Fister, ranked among the top five in ERA in the NL last season, and a very strong argument could be made that Kershaw and Cueto were the league’s two best hurlers. The respective ability of those two to manage contact tends to get lost in the mix of their other, more in-your-face type skills. On the other hand, a mix of sequencing, ballpark effects and shortcomings in bat-missing ability or command caused top contact managers Liriano and Garza to finish 17th and 28th among the 43 NL qualifiers in ERA, respectively.

Contact management is very important, but it alone does not ensure material success in a given season. Certain aspects of it are much more repeatable than others, as well. There were more than five “good” contact managers in the NL last season, but the ones among that group with the lowest liner rates allowed moved to the front of the class, as they tend to do in a given season.

To see how the other half lives, here is a facsimile of the first table, only this time with the bottom-five NL contact scores listed:

	C SCORE	W/K & BB	NL RANK	ACT ERA	NL RANK
Kennedy	114	104	25	99	27
Strasburg	113	87	12	86	16
Stults	110	121	42	117	38
Vogelsong	109	110	35	109	33
Burnett	108	114	39	125	41

Here’s a distinguishing characteristic or two for each of the five NL contact score laggards:

1 – Ian Kennedy – Kennedy has a fairly significant fly-ball tendency, in the 87th percentile in 2014, and the 76th or higher in four of the last five seasons. On the positive side, that brings with it a high pop-up rate (66th percentile in 2014), though that was the lowest mark of his career. Kennedy also tends to allow high liner rates (71 percentile rank in 2014, 62 or higher in three of the last four years). He has issues authority-wise as well, allowing average fly-ball authority over one, and average liner and grounder authority of over a half standard deviation above NL average in 2014. This is a really rough BIP portfolio; he’s the Colby Lewis of the NL, and is heavily reliant on extreme K and BB performance — not to mention Petco Park — for any success he might have.

2 – Stephen Strasburg – Did you see this one coming? If you’ve read my previous articles, you might have. Frequency-wise, Strasburg has not developed a defining tendency; he can’t be classified as a fly-ball or grounder guy. He can, however, can currently be classified as a liner guy; his liner rate was in the 62nd percentile in 2014, the 93rd in 2012, and was high again in 2015 before his recent shutdown. Authority-wise, he allowed average fly-ball and grounder velocity of over a full standard deviation above NL average in 2014, while his liner authority allowed was in the average range. His lack of contact-management ability is the reason why Strasburg has yet to deliver on his potential. He won’t be great until he’s at least average in this area.

3 – Eric Stults – Stults is the definition of a replacement-level ERA-qualifying starting pitcher. Well below-average K rate, well below-average contact management skills. He’s a fly-ball guy (84th percentile in 2014), who gets the pop ups (69th) that one would expect from such a pitcher. His average grounder authority allowed was over a half standard deviation above NL average last season, while his average fly-ball and liner authority allowed were in the average range. All he does well is limit walks; his minuscule K rate puts intense pressure upon his contact-management ability, and it simply isn’t up to the task.

4 – Ryan Vogelsong – Vogelsong posted a career-high fly-ball rate (85th percentile) in 2014, and for the third time in four years, posted a liner percentile rank of 68 or higher, at 73. Not a good frequency combo there. Authority-wise, he allowed average grounder authority of over a half standard deviation above the NL average, and fly-ball and liner authority in the average range. Toss in annually high walk rates, and annually low pop-up rates, unusual for a fly-ball guy, and it’s not a pretty contact management picture.

5 – A.J. Burnett – This is actually a fairly interesting case. Burnett was a quite solid contact manager in his two previous seasons in Pittsburgh in 2012-13, before going to the Phillies in 2014. His grounder percentile ranks dropped from 95 and 96 in 2012-13 to 88 in 2014, while his fly-ball percentile ranks climbed from 3 and 7 in 2012-13 to 18 in 2014. After five straight seasons with below league-average liner rates allowed, his liner percentile rank climbed to 64 in Philly in 2014. He also allowed average fly-ball and liner authority of over a full standard deviation above league average in 2014, while his average grounder authority allowed was in the average range. He allowed the hardest average fly-ball authority in the NL last season. He seems to have been tweaked backed on track in Pittsburgh thus far in 2015.

A quick look back at the two tables above shows that two of the NL contact-management laggards, Strasburg and Kennedy, actually posted better ERAs than Garza, the #1 NL contact manager in 2014. In fact, #2 laggard Strasburg finished one slot ahead of #5 leader Liriano, and #1 laggard Kennedy finished one slot ahead of #1 leader Garza in actual ERA. This tells us a couple of things.

One, obviously, is that ERA is a very limited statistic. Another is that contact management, while very important, is just a piece of the puzzle. It needs to be looked at in a nuanced manner, with true abilities and random variation separated as well as possible in order to isolate true talent. The ones who can do it all, miss bats, minimize walks, and legitimately manage contact — the Kershaws, Cuetos, the Felix Hernandezes — are the chosen few worthy of the pitching mega-contract that has recently become in vogue.