Position: Inside Edge Baseball Operations Intern

Location: Minneapolis
Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier today, I published an article about the season’s worst home run. The criteria was very simple: I just selected the home run with the lowest recorded exit velocity, courtesy of Statcast. I think that position is fairly defensible, even if there might be other ways to identify other bad home runs. It’s subjective. Sorry!

Having that post go up all but demands the posting of the opposite. At the very least, I figure the community is curious. The opposite of the home run hit with the lowest exit velocity is the home run hit with the highest exit velocity. And the opposite of the worst home run is the best home run. I don’t know if this position is so defensible, but, I had to use this headline, just for consistency.

This home run is less interesting than the weak one, because this is just a really good home run. Hence this being an InstaGraphs post, instead of a FanGraphs post. The home run was hit by Carlos Gonzalez, against Zack Greinke, in Arizona, on April 4. It was the season opener for both the Rockies and the Diamondbacks. Gonzalez hit his home run at 117.4 miles per hour. You may watch it now.

The healthy version of Giancarlo Stanton is a Statcast darling. Over Statcast’s brief history, Stanton leads the majors, by far, in the number of batted balls hit at least 115mph. Gonzalez, though, comes up a distant second, which still counts as second. So Gonzalez is no stranger to absolutely stinging the baseball, and this home run was better than any Stanton hit in 2016. Stanton owns the next-hardest homer, at 116.8mph. Then there’s a tie at 115.9mph, between George Springer and Avisail Garcia. It’s interesting to see Gonzalez going deep here in a full count — you might think, with two strikes, he’d somewhat cut down on his swing. He did nothing of the sort, and Greinke made a horrible location mistake.

Greinke knew pretty quickly what Gonzalez had done to him.

Now here’s where it gets extra fun: If you watch the highlight clip, the Rockies announcers joke about the ball’s exit velocity and launch angle. They didn’t know those numbers at the time. They were right that the ball had a high exit velocity — it had the highest exit velocity, among dingers. And they were right that the ball had a low launch angle — it had the lowest launch angle, among dingers. It’s a two-fer! Gonzalez hit the ball 14.2 degrees above the horizontal. The next-lowest homer was hit 15.2 degrees above the horizontal (Kevin Pillar). A shot from the side:

It wound up standing as a very extraordinary home run. It was the sort of batted ball you’d think would be a well-stung double, but it just never came down, registering a Statcast distance estimate of 420 feet. One more time, the ball was hit 117.4mph, with an angle of 14.2 degrees. The average baseball this year hit 420 feet had an exit velocity of 105.4mph, with an angle of 26.9 degrees. Gonzalez just beat the living crap out of a terrible full-count pitch, and this is one of the reasons why he’s not simply a product of Coors Field. You can’t fake his contact quality. He makes some of the very best contact around. Congratulations, Carlos Gonzalez, on your very good dinger.

Position: Oakland Athletics Baseball Operations Analyst

Location: Oakland
Read the rest of this entry »

Position: Texas Rangers TrackMan Operators

Location: Round Rock, Texas; Frisco, Texas; Kinston, N.C.; Hickory, N.C.; Spokane, Wash.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Cardinals had a few problems last season, and among them was unreliable relief pitching. As a means toward addressing that, they’ve given free-agent lefty Brett Cecil a four-year contract, worth $30.5 million. It also has a full no-trade clause! Very clearly, Cecil didn’t come cheap. A number of teams expressed a willingness to guarantee Cecil three years, so the Cardinals stepped up and went one extra.

It wouldn’t be hard to spin this in a negative way. Relievers feel like they’re unpredictable, right? So investing in them long-term might be a fool’s errand. And, last year’s average reliever had a 3.93 ERA. Cecil had a 3.93 ERA. He also finished with the eighth-lowest WPA among relievers, meaning he was even less valuable than his regular statistics. On top of that stuff, Cecil missed a month and a half with a lat injury. He didn’t have a banner first half.

Yet, he did have a much better second half. The healthy Cecil was dominant. Here’s his last pitch of the regular season:

That’s just in there for a pretty visual. Cecil finished the year effective, and he was effective in seasons previous. There’s been a certain response to this contract:

Already have heard from multiple executives and agents who think Brett Cecil’s four-year, $30.5M deal with St. Louis is a market changer.

— Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan) November 19, 2016

But I just don’t agree with that. I don’t think this is the least bit strange or surprising. Cecil got four years and $30.5 million with a full no-trade. Last winter, the Orioles gave Darren O’Day four years and $31 million, with a partial no-trade. They’re very similar contracts, given to a pair of non-closers, and in this table, check out their numbers over the three seasons before signing:

O’Day has the edge in hit and run suppression. Cecil has the edge in peripherals, age, and velocity. While O’Day might’ve been the tougher pitcher to square up, Cecil has made it hard to just put the bat on the ball, and he also has the advantage of a few years of youth. I don’t see how Cecil’s contract, then, is a market-changer. Was O’Day’s contract a market-changer? If so, this one just falls right in line. It might come as a little startling to see a non-closer get four years guaranteed, but Cecil didn’t start this, and there was already emphasis being put on finding better non-closers before. This seems like it’s normal. Brett Cecil’s contract feels normal.

Now, it’s worth noting, perhaps, that O’Day wasn’t great in the first year of his four-year deal. Maybe that means all of this is unwise. But in reality, it’s not that relief pitchers are all that unpredictable. It’s that they just have smaller samples of playing time, and the reduced samples make them unpredictable. They still project like anyone else. And Cecil projects to be fine, and the Cardinals bullpen projects to be good. They can check that priority off the list.

The Milwaukee Brewers claimed outfielder Adam Brett Walker off waivers today from Minnesota. Walker, who just turned 25, was originally selected in the third round of the 2012 draft out of Jacksonville University.

Here’s a distillation of roughly all his virtues as a ballplayer:

As a professional, Walker has recorded 124 home runs in 2,449 plate appearances — including 27 homers this past season in 531 plate appearances for Triple-A Rochester. He has considerable power. Indeed, by at least one measurement, he has nearly the most power. Because, consider: his home-run figures are also accompanied by a number of walks and an even greater number of strikeouts. All told, roughly 45% of all Walker’s plate appearances this year produced one of those two outcomes. That’s an unusually high figure. Which means that Walker was left with relatively few opportunities with which to actually hit those home runs.

Read the rest of this entry »

Another domino is about to fall in the free-agent pitching market. The market would make tapioca look exciting, yes, but someone has to throw innings for baseball teams, and the Rangers have decided to have Andrew Cashner throw some of those innings for them.

Cashner has spent most of his time with the Padres and was traded to the Marlins around the trade deadline. Good 2013 and 2014 campaigns were followed up by a 2015 that saw a downward trend and then a 2016 that was a minor disaster. His strikeouts per nine fell while his walk rate in the other direction. His 12 appearances with the Marlins went even worse.

But, because of the state of the open market, Cashner was one of the more interesting options. His big fastball has always made him appealing — and, indeed, he’s experienced success for some time. But injuries have derailed him of late and a fastball that once averaged 96 mph is down to 94, per Brooks Baseball.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mike Berardino of the the St. Paul Pioneer Press had an American League Cy Young Award vote this year. He filled out his ballot as follows:

1. Verlander
2. Britton
3. Miller
4. Kluber
5. Porcello

I respect Berardino’s ballot. As a matter of fact, I applaud it — and not only because he placed the three starters in the same order I would have. That’s a secondary consideration. Far more meaningful is the fact that he included both Zach Britton and Andrew Miller, and not just one of the two.

Read the rest of this entry »

Every year, a discussion of the definition of “value” inevitably comes up in the context of the MVP awards. That discussion is particularly prominent this year with Mike Trout, who was inarguably the best player in the American League, unlikely to win the award because his team sucked. The anti-Trout side of the argument goes: the MVP is for the most valuable player, and you can’t be that valuable if your team didn’t win anything.

But value goes both ways. If the Angels would have had the same season result – no playoffs – with or without Trout, the same can be said for, say, the Cubs and Kris Bryant. Bryant or no Bryant, the Cubs almost certainly would have won their division and probably would have still held the National League’s best record. Bryant, however, is likely to be announced tonight as the NL MVP, whereas Trout will probably get a fourth (!) consolation prize. Bryant wasn’t really all that crucial to his team’s success; his value is diminished by the fact that his teammates didn’t need him!

Now, that argument might sound silly, but I don’t know that it’s that much sillier than the argument against Trout. Taking the word “value” literally, the question becomes: who was most important to their team’s success? If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of value, isn’t that what you’re really asking?

To that end, I created a way of looking at how many wins each MVP candidate contributed to their specific team. I did this by subtracting each player’s offensive runs created (“Off” on our leaderboards) from their team’s runs scored and adding each player’s defensive runs saved (“Def”) to their team’s runs allowed. I then recalculated the team’s Pythagorean record. The result is a sort of wins-above-average-per-162 statistic, specific to the team, which allows us to assess where on the win curve the team would have been left without the player.

The win curve part is important because it allows for a distinction between a player like Bryant, who makes his team’s Pythagorean record budge from 107 wins to 102, and a player like Corey Seager, whose team goes from 90 to 85 – a much more drastic change in playoff chances.

So here are several top performers from both leagues, sorted entirely unscientifically by what looked to me like the most impressive contribution to their team.

For the record, I would vote for both Trout and Bryant. I don’t agree with this line of thinking. This is just another way to look at it, and if you want to make an argument for Mookie Betts, Josh Donaldson, or Corey Seager, it’s a pretty compelling one.

The obvious caveat is that by using Pythagorean record, this method doesn’t measure exactly what happened, it measures what probably should have happened. That’s a whole ‘nother argument to have in regards to the MVP; we see it pop up as well in the Cy Young race with ERA vs. FIP. Additionally, the exact interactions between team and player are more complicated than just adding and subtracting total runs. This method isn’t perfect. But it’s fun to think about nonetheless.

If you’re a regular reader, you know that my primary role here at FanGraphs is to talk to people within the game and share their thoughts. Many of my conversations are with pitchers. From them, I’ve heard a particular phrase countless times:

“My job is to give my team a chance to win.”

The extent to which such a thing can be quantified is subjective. That doesn’t make it meaningless. In my opinion, the supposition — for lack of a better term — should factor into the Cy Young Award debate.

It’s well known that pitchers have little control over wins and losses. The best they can do is limit the opposition’s run total. They don’t have complete control over that, either, but they do strongly influence it. As a rule, the best pitchers have the lowest ERAs. Again, not a perfect stat, but it tells a big part of the story.

Read the rest of this entry »