Gunnar Henderson Explores the Rolen Zone

On September 7, 1996, Scott Rolen’s journey to the Hall of Fame took a painful, but perhaps ultimately fortuitous twist. That afternoon, the Phillies played the Cubs at Veterans Stadium. Rolen had recorded his 130th at-bat of the year in the bottom of the first: With the bases loaded and one out, he struck out on four pitches against Steve Trachsel. Two innings later, Rolen came up for what was supposed to be at-bat no. 131. Instead, Trachsel hit him in the forearm with a pitch, breaking the ulna in Rolen’s right forearm.
The 21-year-old Rolen took his base, then tried to gut it out in the field in the top of the fourth. He lasted three batters, then could continue no longer. Jim Fregosi pulled Rolen and replaced him with Kevin Sefcik, one of the dozens of interchangeable Kevins who filled out the rosters of the mid-90s Phillies. Rolen took no further part in the 1996 season.
The following year, Rolen played 156 games, hit .283/.377/.469 with 21 home runs and 16 stolen bases, and cakewalked to a unanimous victory in the NL Rookie of the Year race. It was Rolen’s first piece of individual hardware, and one that would not have been possible had Trachsel not plunked him the previous September.
Astute readers will already know the significance of a rookie’s 131st at-bat. To be rookie-eligible, a player must not have exceeded the following criteria: 130 at-bats, 50 innings pitched, or 45 days on the active major league roster. This constitutes a reasonable concession to the reality that a few games’ worth of major league experience doesn’t mean that much in a player’s development arc. But it can be absolutely maddening to track in practice.
The roster days component most frequently slips through the cracks; it’s easy to forget about altogether. And while the playing time rules haven’t changed since 1971, the way service time counts against the 45-day limit has: Through 2019, the last season of 40-man roster expansion, days accrued after September 1 counted toward a player’s free agency, pension, and so forth, but not his rookie eligibility. Time on the major league injured list also counts toward service time, but not rookie status.
And then there’s the distinction between eligibility for the batting title, which concerns plate appearances, and rookie eligibility, which concerns at-bats. I know nobody cares about your fantasy team but: Just this weekend I drafted Gunnar Henderson in my Diamond Mind league, so I was looking at his 2022 stats with the Orioles. I probably spent a solid minute trying to figure out how he was at the top of so many prospect lists when he’d already accrued 132 plate appearances in the majors. It was only then that I remembered that the important number was Henderson’s 116 major league at-bats.
Ideally, we’d appoint some wise person to make a subjective determination between rookie status and not. Me, for instance. I’d be willing to serve as dictator of the world if the people so desired it. But failing that, objective standards lead to some weird edge cases. Anthony Rizzo, a particularly patient hitter, got all the way to 153 plate appearances his first year without going over 130 at-bats. In 1975, Doug Flynn managed to appear in 90 games as the utility infielder for the Big Red Machine, but only recorded 127 at-bats. (Turns out Pete Rose and Joe Morgan’s backup isn’t going to get that many starts. Who woulda thought?) In 2015, Byron Buxton recorded 138 plate appearances, 129 at-bats, and 113 days of service time. But of those 113 days, 80 (by my count) either came after September 1 or passed with Buxton on the IL (then the DL). So he opened 2016 still on prospect lists and as a heavy favorite for AL Rookie of the Year.
This confusing middle ground — more than 130 plate appearances, but 130 or fewer at-bats — represents a tough needle to thread. (For simplicity’s sake, I’m calling this the Rolen Zone from this point on.) But a couple of position players manage it almost every season. Since 1971, 104 first-year position players have resided in the Rolen Zone. Not all of them have retained their rookie eligibility, however, and the further back in history we go the harder it gets to determine.
Since the strike, as best as I can tell there have been 44 instances of a first-year position player coming to the plate more than 130 times but retaining rookie eligibility the following season. Seven of them received Rookie of the Year votes the following season, including Ryan Mountcastle, who appeared on Rookie of the Year ballots in both 2020 and 2021:
| Player | Season | Team | G | PA | AB | Next Year ROY Finish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ryan Mountcastle | 2020 | BAL | 35 | 140 | 126 | 8th (6th in 2020) |
| Brandon Lowe | 2018 | TBR | 43 | 148 | 129 | 3rd |
| Josh Bell | 2016 | PIT | 45 | 152 | 128 | 3rd |
| Yuli Gurriel | 2016 | HOU | 36 | 137 | 130 | 4th |
| Mike Trout | 2011 | LAA | 40 | 135 | 123 | 1st |
| Delmon Young | 2006 | TBD | 30 | 131 | 126 | 2nd |
| Scott Rolen | 1996 | PHI | 37 | 146 | 130 | 1st |
That’s a small enough number, around two players a season on average, that it’s probably unwise to draw quantitative conclusions. Still, seven Rookie of the Year vote-getters out of 43 players (not counting Henderson) is 16.3%. Compare that to all rookies: In 2022, 234 rookie position players batted at least once. Nine of those received at least one Rookie of the Year vote, a conversion rate of 3.8%.
Of the seven Rookie of the Year vote-getters, six had appeared on someone’s top 100 prospect list at some point in their minor league careers. The one exception, Gurriel, arrived in American pro ball as a 32-year-old who’d spent a decade crushing top competition in Cuba and Japan.
Several other top prospects landed in the Rolen Zone but did not figure in awards voting as rookies, with Rizzo, Buxton, and Dansby Swanson the most notable of those. Several others went on to long and decorated careers. (Brett Gardner, Jake Lamb, Aaron Rowand, to name three.)
Is there something about the Rolen Zone that portends future success? The qualitative elements to a player’s game that might fit the Rolen Zone are patience and power. The larger the gap between a player’s plate appearance total and his at-bat total, the larger the eye of the needle he has to thread to get in the Rolen Zone. Josh Bell had 24 plate appearances as a first-year player that didn’t register as at-bats: 21 walks and three sacrifice flies. Delmon Young had only five.
Well, big league teams call up rookies for one of two reasons: First, they have a hole and need a body, any body, to fill it. Second, they think the rookie either is or will soon become better than the incumbent at the position.
Since 1995, 3,268 position players have appeared in at least one major league game. Of those, 29% didn’t manage to register 131 plate appearances or more in their entire careers. (Or their careers so far.) Two of those players pulled a Moonlight Graham and appeared in one inning of a major league game without batting.
The median figure for plate appearances since 1995 is 557. Among Rolen Zone players who debuted from 1995 to 2021, 35 beat that figure. (Antonio Perez, best known as one of the prospects in the trade that sent Ken Griffey Jr. to the Reds, hit 557 on the dot. He gets to take home the entire jar of jelly beans.) That effect has only gotten more pronounced as teams have become more intentional about things like the 40-man roster and service time. Unless Henderson gets abducted by aliens or receives a call to the priesthood in the next 10 months, all 16 players who got Rolen Zoned from 2013 to 2022 will end up with at least 600 plate appearances in the majors.
Does that mean that the Rolen Zone selects players who are better than Quad-A roster filler? To some extent, that’s probably true. If they perform better, they’ll last longer in the majors. But it’s more important that the player’s team believes he’s good.
Some of these guys, like Henderson, come up and rake from Day 1. Others, like Rolen, have an indifferent prologue to their careers before taking off in their proper rookie season. Still others, Trout being the most prominent example, suck major booty in their first big league go-around and figure it out later. The common thread among these archetypes is that they get lots of playing time, and quickly.
Remember, not every first-year player with more than 130 plate appearances but 130 or fewer at-bats retains rookie eligibility. Some run afoul of the roster days cutoff by hanging around as part-time players; last year, Alex Call spent too long in the majors to retain rookie eligibility.
Usage explains that discrepancy.
| Player | Service Days | G | GS | PA | AB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Call | 75 | 42 | 29 | 131 | 114 |
| Gunnar Henderson | 36 | 34 | 27 | 132 | 116 |
Henderson was the Orioles’ only over-slot pick in the first 10 rounds of the 2019 draft; by the time he was big league-ready, he was considered one of the top prospects in the sport. The Orioles weren’t going to call him up to have him ride the bench. Call was a solid prospect in the draft, and he played almost every day for the Nationals down the stretch. But in between those two things, he was a 27-year-old who’d been in the minors for parts of seven years and had just gone through waivers. There’s less urgency to get him in the lineup every day.
And in order to get near 130 plate appearances in 45 days, you have to play basically every day. Roster filler, backup catchers, fifth outfielders, those guys tend not to get much concentrated playing time. Top prospects do, even if they stink at first.
Henderson’s presence in the Rolen Zone is an auspicious omen; it places him in company with a Hall of Famer on the left side of the infield, even if the criteria for that comparison were invented out of whole cloth in the process of writing this article.
Michael is a writer at FanGraphs. Previously, he was a staff writer at The Ringer and D1Baseball, and his work has appeared at Grantland, Baseball Prospectus, The Atlantic, ESPN.com, and various ill-remembered Phillies blogs. Follow him on Twitter, if you must, @MichaelBaumann.
Why? Just…why?
Boredom is a powerful thing.
Why write anything?
I get that this is the offseason and things are boring but I don’t see any reason for this at all. Someone were to ask you what the Rolen zone was and you tried to explain it you would get blank looks. “What does that have to do with Rolen? Why does this matter?” And your response would have to be “this is a completely insignificant footnote in Rolen’s career and equally insignificant for anyone else’s. It doesn’t matter at all.”
They might ask: Was it at least funny? And you would shake your head sadly.
I don’t LIKE spelling all this out. I prefer “why?” Instead. But you asked.
Eh, I can accept that some people like articles I don’t (also, Rolen is definitely in the news, so I don’t think it’s quite as insignificant as you claim given the handwringing around his election/skillset).
I’m more upset that “Rolen in the Zone” was right there and, yet, still ignored. Have we abandoned the rhetorical principles that made FG great?
I’m confused. Your objection here is the title? Or that you just don’t find this interesting?
I find it interesting.
I object to everything! (it’s safer that way)
Lol of course this could also be called the Mike Trout zone
man this would have crushed with the Ringer audience I bet
They still have an audience?
I played Diamond Mind baseball for 10 years, replaying five full seasons game-by-game. I stopped in 2012. Tom Tippett, who invented it, sold it in 2006 and went to work for the Red Sox. It is a great game.
It’s funny, I wonder why Strat-O-Matic draft leagues don’t have more traction (kinda same idea as Diamond Mind). I think if guys knew what it was/what people were doing, it could garner as much or more enthusiasm than fantasy leagues. It is baseball nerdvana at its apex.
Can you provide an ELI5 ?
Cards are generated (pitchers and hitters) based on a player’s previous season’s stats. The cards are used to play actual games, a batter versus a pitcher, one after the other, until each team has recorded 27 outs, etc. The cards have a bunch of features like defense, how well a guy can bunt, how much he strickes out, etc. Every aspect of the actual game and player ability is taken into account including ballpark factors, ability to hold runners, throwing arms, etc.
These cards then form the basis of teams, that then form the basis of leagues. Our one league started 18 years ago, we took the entirey of the AL, had a start-up draft, and have been playing it ever since. It is dynasty format, so when you draft a guy, you keep him forever. Our season is 162 games, we get results every day during the year, one or two games at a time.
The way the games are actually played depends on the league.
Some leagues do this FTF (netplay), some have you play against an opponent’s computer manager (play by mail), some just do autoplay (guys program instructions, computer runs the games and outcomes are delivered as boxscores).
Each year there is a rookie draft and all the new players get folded in and guys choose among them, for instance, Julio will go #1 this year, Rutschman #2, Witt/Harris/Strider, etc #3. Some leagues though have full minor leagues and don’t draft (some get really involved and have salary).
A main hub for most of the leagues is run by a guy named Flory; you can see like 30 or 40 of them at his dot net site. There’s a fan forum that posts openings as well.
It’s interesting because I listen to all the baseball podcasts, and it seems like the decisions are really limited to what a guy may produce statistically this year (fantasy), but for our drafts, I’m like agonizing over whether Gunnar or Witt Jr are going to burn me or if I’ll get great,10+ year careers out of them.
Sounds fun! Thanks. For the info
I played it before it was called Diamond Mind baseball and on a computer. Pursue the pennant I believe was its first name. had red, white and blue 10 sided dice. you rolled 000- 999 for your results. We used to draft our own teams after ranking all the players as A’s, B, C and Ds. 5 A’s, 9 B’s 8 C’s 4 D’s One draft pick got you your stadium and the Quality of your minor league system for injury replacements. you could have the undrafted B rounders as injury replacements if you wasted an A round pick.
I note the intriguing case of Kyle Tucker who tallied exactly 131 between two call-ups in 2018 and 2019. Then in the shortened season of 2020 he (to my eyes) outplayed all the rookie eligibles, but didn’t quite qualify.
Yes, I thought of Tucker’s experience as I was reading as well. Had he not been inserted as a pinch runner for Michael Brantley early in the last game of the 2019 season, he would have retained his rookie eligibility.
Corbin Carroll missed the Rolen zone by 15 PAs
Volpe v Henderson for RoY in 2023 is going to be riveting af
Honestly the only thing worrying me is these players seem to become unendingly greedy once the prospect status is gone. They don’t seem to understand at this stage they are aging and depreciating asset piece chips. Henderson’s character will be revealed soon enough. If he turns down a team friendly extension it’ll be obvious he’s shooting for at least $600 million in an attempt to blow past Kris Bryant’s $300 million, Harper’s $400 million, and Ohtani’s $500 million demands
Oh come on, this one’s good. The history of #1 overall prospects is super cereally dangerous and scary if you consider the early media speculation and rumors (from sauces) over what their demands will be in FA. Boogity boogity…The stars are already aligning with Holliday in the org
Is it a foregone conclusion that Henderson will SS or might he 3B really well like Rolen did. And Manny Machado
i think it’s like 60/40 3B
good stuff
Good read. I’ll allow it.
Been thinking about this article for 24 hours. What does it mean? What does it tell us? Players who have over 130 PA’s but don’t exhaust rookie-eligibility are usually top prospects? Ok? Why did we need the first 2000 words and not just the last two paragraphs? Why am i still thinking about this article?
I liked this article and think it has some merit.
Fun article! Sometimes stats are just stats with no takeaway but a fun exploration. I appreciate sharing the deep dive into something that probably wasn’t super meaningful and turned out that way, but I still learned something about the PA/AB difference and enjoyed the read along the way.
I’m here for the sole reason to point out to myself and probably nobody else that September 7, 1996 Phillies-Cubs was the first baseball game I saw in person.
A) Guys occasionally receive ROY votes in two separate years, so it is theoretically possible for a player to win ROY in two straight years. I think that a starting pitcher might have the best chance. I can see a pitcher coming up and being sensational in 7, maybe 8 starts at the end of a season, winning ROY, then coming back the next year and winning it again.
B) Rookie Hazing: Rookies are often expected to carry the other players’ bags and other things. Is a player’s rookie status determined by his rookie eligibility. Some players have cups of coffee in the bigs spanning several years. Are they still getting hazed in their 4th years? It is possible for a player to be in the Rolen-Zone one year, and then in his second year, make the all star team and still technically be a rookie. Is he still getting hazed despite the fact that he has more experience than many guys on the team who are not rookies?
Who were the two players that moonlighted?