Hitter Contact-Quality Report: Third Base

Our position-by-position tour of hitter contact quality reaches its midway point today. Last time, we looked at shortstops. Today, hot-corner regulars. As we have in the previous installments, we’ll use granular ball-in-play data, such as BIP type frequencies, exit speed and launch angle to perform this analysis.

The data examined today runs through June 10. Players are separated by league, and are listed in Adjusted Production order. Adjusted Production expresses, on a scale where 100 equals average, what a hitter “should have” produced based on the exit speed/launch angle of each ball put in play. Each player’s Adjusted Contact Score, which weeds out the strikeouts and walks and states what each player should have produced on BIP alone, is also listed. Here goes:

Most of the column headers are self-explanatory, including average BIP speed (overall and by BIP type), BIP type frequency, K and BB rates, wRC+ and Adjusted Production, which incorporates the exit speed/angle data. Each hitter’s Adjusted Contact Score (ADJ C) is also listed. Adjusted Contact Score applies league-average production to each hitter’s individual actual BIP type and velocity mix, and compares it to league average of 100.

Cells are also color-coded. If a hitter’s value is two standard deviations or more higher than average, the field is shaded red. If it’s one to two STD higher than average, it’s shaded orange. If it’s one-half to one STD higher than average, it’s shaded dark yellow. If it’s one-half to one STD less than average, it’s shaded blue. If it’s over one STD less than average, it’s shaded black. Ran out of colors at that point. On the rare occasions that a value is over two STD lower than average, we’ll mention it if necessary in the text.

It should be noted that individual hitters’ BIP frequency and authority figures correlate quite well from year to year, with one notable exception. As with pitchers, individual hitters’ liner rates fluctuate quite significantly from year to year, for all but a handful of hitters with a clear talent (or lack thereof) for squaring up the baseball.

Projecting performance based on BIP speed/angle opens us up to a couple biases that we didn’t need to address when evaluating pitchers. Pitchers face a mix of pull and opposite field-oriented hitters, more and less authoritative hitters, etc. Hitters are who they are each time they step up to the plate, and we must choose whether or not to address their individual tendencies.

I have adjusted the projected ground-ball performance for hitters who meet two criteria. First, they’ve recorded over five times as many grounders to the pull side than to the opposite field and, second, they exhibit a resulting deficiency in actual versus projected grounder performance. Such hitters’ projected grounder performance was capped at their actual performance level. Such hitters’ Adjusted Contact Scores and Adjusted Production figures are in red fonts.

I have decided not to adjust for the other primary factor that can skew actual versus projected performance based on exit speed/angle — namely, player speed. We’re attempting to assess hitter contact quality here; let’s keep speed/athleticism separate. As a result, we’ll see some slow, hard-hitting-to-all-fields sluggers overperform on this metric, and some more athletic players underperform. Contact quality is just part of offensive baseball; let’s attempt to isolate and evaluate it on its own.

That’s a strong group at the top of the AL third-base heap, so it might be a bit surprising to see Danny Valencia’s name on top. If anything, he’s been even more impressive than his traditional numbers. His home park suffocates production in the air; he recorded a .308 AVG and 1.077 SLG (128 Unadjusted Relative Production) on fly balls through June 10, but “should have” batted .415 AVG-1.271 SLG (196) based on exit speed/angle. He’s also hit his liners and grounders much harder than league average. He’s no longer a platooner, his K/BB profile is adequate, and he doesn’t pop up much despite all that foul ground in Oakland. Sure, the liner rate should regress downward, but Valencia’s performance to date is not a fluke.

No, he probably won’t win a second straight MVP Award, but Josh Donaldson is now firmly entrenched as one of the junior circuit’s very best players. He crushes all BIP types, and the only blemish on his entire BIP profile is an elevated pop-up rate. One thing on which to keep an eye, however: he hit only .180 AVG-.200 SLG on grounders through June 10, due more to a fairly pronounced pull tendency than to BIP authority. He narrowly avoided an excessive pull penalty in my method, as his pulled/oppo grounder ratio was 4.3. Clubs are overshifting him in the infield at times, a large portion of the reason that his wRC+ was below his Adjusted Production as of June 10.

There are clear pros and cons in Nick Castellanos‘ profile. He’s a fairly extreme fly-ball hitter with a low pop-up rate, a very unique skill. He hits the ball quite hard in the air, and his power is actually sapped quite a bit by his home park (118 Unadjusted vs. 180 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score). His overall 178 Adjusted Contact Score is pretty darned impressive. The negatives? His poor K/BB profile affords him no margin for error with regard to contact quality. His high liner rate is due for some serious negative regression. Perhaps most interestingly, he is one of the very few MLB regulars who hits fly balls, liners and grounders with progressively declining levels of authority. His grounder authority is over two STD lower than MLB average. He’s an odd case: a young player with old-player skills, but one who should be quite productive in the short to intermediate term.

Like Donaldson, Kyle Seager has a high, virtually maxed out fly-ball rate, and a near-excessive grounder-pulling tendency that is on the verge of being assessed a fairly significant penalty. That said, Seager’s floor is extremely high thanks to his low K rate for a power hitter, and he scratches out every inch of possible ceiling by expertly selectively pulling pitches he can handle for distance. His Unadjusted Fly Ball Contact Score will tend to outpace his Adjusted mark, thanks to his ability to ride 95 mph flies out of the yard down the right-field line.

Evan Longoria’s profile is not all that different from Castellanos’. He is “harvesting,” selling out for power, particularly to the pull side. At this stage in his career, this is a shrewd move on Longoria’s part. He is shellacking his fly balls (170 Adjusted Contact Score) and liners (an AL 3B best 123), while hitting his grounders weaker than many middle infielders. His fly-ball rate is also at the high end of the scale, with nowhere to go but down. This is as good as it gets for Longoria going forward.

Adrian Beltre provides a blueprint for remaining productive at an advanced age. The Castellanos/Longoria method has a limited shelf life, as at some point fly-ball authority/frequency fade, causing a free fall that a poor K/BB ratio can’t withstand. Beltre has cut his K rate to the bone while retaining slightly above-average ball-striking skills. He’s been very unlucky on grounders, batting .174 AVG-.188 SLG (57 Unadjusted Contact Score), while hitting the ball the other way just enough to avoid a pulling penalty. His decline phase will continue to remain smooth and subtle.

Todd Frazier has hit a bunch of homers this year. That’s about it for the positives in his offensive game. He’s been helped a great deal by his home park (297 Unadjusted vs. 198 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score), and his pop-up rate is way, way off of the charts in the wrong direction. His extreme pull tendency on the ground is a real problem: he batted .091 AVG-.091 SLG on grounders through June 10 thanks to the resulting overshifting. His extremely poor grounder authority, over two full STD below MLB average, makes the shifting nearly moot. His liner rate is due for a positive bounce, but this is a guy who measures out as a below-average offensive player to date, even with all of those homers.

Travis Shaw has been one of the many Red Sox youngsters driving their promising early season performance. All have been helped in one way or another by their friendly home park. Shaw batted .444 AVG-1.093 SLG (171 Unadjusted Fly Ball Contact Score) through June 10; his exit speed/angle supports just a 121 mark. Lots of otherwise unassuming fly balls tend to find the Monster and become doubles instead of outs, a tendency of which Shaw has successfully taken advantage. He’s also overperformed on grounders, causing his overall 143 Unadjusted Contact Score to be adjusted down to 110. He’s solid, but not as good as his present numbers.

David Wright’s season might well be in the books, but what a short-term run it was. He was the ultimate “harvester,” selling out totally for fly-ball power to the pull side, sacrificing tons of contact in the process. He recorded only a .359 AVG and .923 SLG on fly balls (118 Unadjusted Fly Ball Contact Score) through June 10, but “should have” hit .424 AVG-1.246 SLG (194 Adjusted) adjusted for context. His liner rate was elevated and due for serious regression that might now never come. A 212 overall Adjusted Contact Score, which includes a excessive grounder pulling penalty, is pretty difficult to pull off. Here’s to hoping that Wright can physically recover and give the Mets whatever he’s got left.

Kris Bryant is another playing fitting the high risk/high reward Castellanos/Longoria mold. He’s a better version, however, with superior fly-ball authority. The weak grounder-striking and nearly excessive pull tendency are causes for some concern in the near term. In the next year or two we will find out whether Bryant will be a hit-before-power superstar throughout his career, or a power-before-hit slugger with big holes who will need to make adjustments to reach his potential. The comforting news is that Mike Schmidt rode that second path to the Hall of Fame.

Matt Carpenter is quite the craftsman. He has totally overhauled his offensive game in the last two seasons, morphing from an all-fields OBP specialist to a more productive all-around hitter with a power focus. Throughout it all, his very strong K/BB profile and unique ability to consistently run a high liner rate has served as his foundation. He’s able to withstand the significant pulling penalty that infield overshifting imposes; he batted .081 AVG-.135 SLG (18 Adjusted Contact Score) on the ground through June 10. He’s a safe offensive player with as small a distance between floor and ceiling as there is.

We’re all still waiting for Anthony Rendon to deliver on his potential and become an All-Star-caliber player. Inability to consistently drive the ball in the air has held him back: he batted just .271 AVG-.771 SLG (76 Unadjusted Contact Score) in the air through June 10, and adjustment for context barely nudges that upward to 81. He has been extremely unlucky on liners to date, batting just .587 AVG-.761 SLG (78 Unadjusted Liner Contact Score), despite strong authority which suggests a 112 Adjusted mark, largely accounting for the deficiency in his wRC+ compared to his overall Adjusted Production.

Wait, what’s Nolan Arenado doing in the fifth spot on this list? First, a disclaimer: I love Arenado, always have, through the minors to his current standing as an All-Star. It’s just… Coors Field, man. Through June 10, these 15 NL third basemen had hit 44 fly balls at 105 mph or higher. Arenado was responsible for just one of them. For comparison’s sake, Bryant hit 12, and Wright hit 7. Arenado hit 21 fly balls between 95-99 mph, more than anyone else. In most parks, they’re far from sure bets to clear the wall; in Coors, they’re almost uniformly gone. He batted .438 AVG-1.453 SLG (242 Unadjusted Contact Score) on fly balls through June 10, but “should have” hit .330 AVG-.958 SLG (116). Like Castellanos, he interestingly doesn’t hit his liners or grounders very hard. Yes, his low liner rate will regress upward, but his fly-ball rate is about maxed out. In a neutral environment, he’s a near-average ball-striker. That said, he never strikes out and plays Gold Glove defense. That package would make him a really good player elsewhere, but he’s an MVP candidate in Coors.

Jake Lamb just might be emerging into Arizona’s latest under-the-radar star. There really aren’t any holes in his profile: he hits his fly balls, liners and grounders quite hard, his pop-up rate is low, and his fly-ball rate has room to grow. He has gotten some help from the more hitter-friendly parks in his division to date, hitting .447 AVG-1.395 SLG (242 Unadjusted Fly Ball Contact Score), compared to an adjusted 126 mark. He’s also somewhat close to an extreme puller on the ground, which would invite overshifts and hamper his batting average. All in all, there’s a lot of upside here; he and Arenado should do battle in the NL West for quite awhile.

Through June 10’s games, Justin Turner was sitting there with a 79 wRC+, way below the 101 Adjusted Production suggested by granular BIP metrics. Things have evened out since then, to say the least. The biggest eye-opener in Turner’s profile was his .098 AVG-.118 SLG (20 Adjusted Contact Score) on grounders; he “should have” hit .238 AVG-.260 SLG (107). Turner is a nice, steady high-floor, modest-ceiling option that has provided the Dodgers with cost-efficient flexibility and production in recent years.

I’m still a big believer in Maikel Franco’s upside, but there clearly are some adjustments in order in the near term. The liner rate is low, and should regress positively, and the K/BB profile, though imperfect, is in a decent place considering his age. The fly-ball authority (138 Unadjusted, 149 Adjusted Contact Score) is also solid for a youngster, and the fly-ball rate has room to grow. His extreme grounder-pulling ways, at such a young age, are a real problem. He’s batting .147 AVG-.162 SLG (41 Unadjusted Production) on the ground, as he almost never grounds one the other way. Just keeping them honest in the infield, allowing him to reach his humble 93 Adjusted Grounder Contact Score, would boost his overall Adjusted Production to 104, and set the stage for future growth.

You might ask why Martin Prado is sitting at the very bottom of the above list. Well, it’s because he hit .711 AVG-.933 SLG (116 Unadjusted Contact Score) on liners, and .313 AVG-.344 SLG (186) on grounders through June 10, compared to much lower adjusted scores of 90 and 108, respectively. He’s got absolutely no juice in the air (28 Adjusted Contact Score). He makes extremely regular contact, and hits his share of liners, but that’s it for offensive positives. This is Omar Infante waiting to happen.