2015 Positional Ball-in-Play Retrospective – 3B

Camps are open, players either are or aren’t in the best shape of their lives, and everyone’s starting to tire of watching bullpens and PFP. Let’s continue to take a position-by-position look back at the ball-in-play (BIP) profiles of 2015 semi-regulars and regulars to see if we can find any clues as to their projected performance moving forward. We’ve already looked at first basemen and designated hitters and second baseman and shortstops; today, let’s complete the infield with a look at third basemen.

First, some ground rules. To come up with an overall player population roughly equal to one player per team per position, the minimum number of batted balls with Statcast readings was set at 164. Players were listed at the position at which they played the most games. There is more than one player per team at some positions and less at others, like catcher and DH. Players are listed in descending OPS+ order. Without further ado, let’s kick it off with the AL third sackers.

BIP Overview – AL 3B
Name Avg MPH FB/LD MPH GB MPH POP% FLY% LD% GB% CON K% BB% OPS+ Pull% Cent% Opp%
Donaldson 92.43 96.71 88.50 3.6% 34.3% 17.3% 44.8% 156 18.7% 10.3% 155 42.9% 33.5% 23.7%
Valencia 92.90 95.57 90.61 2.6% 27.7% 17.2% 52.4% 149 21.2% 7.7% 134 47.8% 34.0% 18.3%
Machado 92.44 94.03 92.43 5.4% 33.1% 17.8% 43.7% 123 15.6% 9.8% 131 38.1% 36.7% 25.2%
Moustakas 89.85 91.47 90.64 6.3% 35.1% 18.8% 39.9% 103 12.4% 7.0% 120 39.2% 33.4% 27.4%
Seager 89.25 91.82 86.86 4.0% 36.8% 24.0% 35.2% 99 14.3% 7.9% 118 44.4% 31.8% 23.8%
Longoria 90.26 93.98 86.31 4.4% 36.0% 20.6% 39.0% 111 19.7% 7.6% 111 41.9% 32.1% 26.0%
Beltre 89.88 92.95 87.34 2.9% 32.8% 22.7% 41.6% 96 10.5% 6.6% 110 38.8% 38.6% 22.6%
Freese 89.56 94.29 86.28 1.9% 26.2% 17.5% 54.4% 113 22.8% 6.6% 109 38.1% 30.6% 31.3%
Valbuena 89.89 93.98 85.34 4.2% 41.3% 20.3% 34.2% 101 21.5% 10.1% 103 44.7% 29.3% 26.0%
Plouffe 90.81 93.39 88.57 4.9% 35.8% 18.2% 41.1% 101 19.6% 7.9% 99 42.7% 34.6% 22.7%
Castellanos 88.36 90.59 85.37 0.5% 39.9% 23.3% 36.2% 118 25.5% 6.6% 98 36.2% 34.5% 29.3%
Lawrie 90.06 94.39 87.11 1.9% 30.8% 18.5% 48.8% 111 23.9% 4.7% 92 38.1% 36.7% 25.2%
Headley 87.20 90.48 84.31 3.6% 26.8% 26.6% 43.1% 96 21.0% 7.9% 92 44.3% 35.6% 20.0%
Sandoval 89.20 91.95 88.85 4.3% 28.0% 18.8% 48.9% 74 14.5% 5.0% 76 29.8% 39.5% 30.8%
AVERAGE 90.15 93.26 87.75 3.6% 33.2% 20.1% 43.1% 111 18.7% 7.6% 111 40.5% 34.4% 25.2%

Most of the column headers are self explanatory, including average BIP speed (overall and by BIP type), BIP type frequency, K and BB rates, and BIP by field sector (pull, central, opposite). Each player’s OPS and Unadjusted Contact Score (CON) is also listed. For those of you who have not read my articles on the topic, Contact Score is derived by removing Ks and BBs from hitters’ batting lines, assigning run values to all other events, and comparing them to a league average of 100.

Read the rest of this entry »


Build a Better WAR Metric, Checkpoint

In trying to summarize the responses to the three questions, so far, what we have in terms of preference is:
– the event, regardless of the context
– the event, within the context of the whole game state (inning, score, base, out)
– the event, within the context of the base-out state
– and far down the list, the event as it ultimately affects the inning

What the responders therefore are gravitating toward is a purely
content-neutral metric. But, to the extent that we do want to measure the context-specific impact, that should be kept separate, and perhaps not even tied to the player at all. Just a general “timing” bucket.

If we take the case of the triple in the previous thread, in either case, Hamilton and Dyson will get +1 run, because that’s the context-neutral value of the triple, according to Linear Weights.

We immediately add a -0.1 runs because a triple with the bases empty and 0 outs is worth +0.9 runs. So, they don’t want to penalize either guy for getting the triple when they did, and so, to make things add up, we need “-0.1” runs for timing.

Then the three outs, they each get -0.25 runs, as is the standard weight.

So far, we have this:
+1.0 Hamilton
-0.1 timing: limited impact triple
-0.25 batter1
-0.25 batter2
-0.25 batter3

That’s a total of +0.15 runs. But since the inning started at +0.5 runs of expectancy, and we get 0 runs scored, the total has to be -0.5 runs. So, we add another item:
-0.65 bad timing: leaving runner on base

As for the other scenario:
+1.0 Dyson
-0.1 timing: limited impact triple
-0.25 batter1
-0.25 batter2
-0.25 batter3

But, since we actually scored a run, that should come in at +0.5 runs. We need another:
+0.35 good timing: scoring the runner

For a minority, a vocal minority, those “timing” impact runs should be given to the players involved. Looking at the Hamilton one, whereas a generic out is worth -0.25 runs, an out with a runner on third is more costly. So, that -0.65 runs has to be distributed to the three out-makers, for those readers part of the vocal minority. For the readers in the majority, those runs are an after-thought. Maybe they should be considered, so the thing adds up. But, it shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of the players involved. Just a general team bucket to capture the various plays affected by timing.

So, that’s how you build your WAR:

For each player, figure his context-neutral impact as one value, and his “timing” as another value.

Then, the reader can choose whether to include the timing value or not.

Now, on to the pitchers and fielders!


Betts, Springer, and Other Contract-Extension Candidates

As teams begin full workouts in Spring Training, they get the opportunity to make sure that all of their players arrive healthy and in good shape to start the season. While they likely pay attention to all players, of particular interest are those players who their second or third years in the big leagues. These players are still making the major league minimum salary and, as a result, are the best candidates to approach regarding a long-term extension. Such deals offer players with their first real shot at big-time money, and often pay off down the line for teams: indeed, as my research indicates, teams saved more than half a billion dollars on long-term extensions signed from 2008 to 2011. While the number of candidates for contract extensions isn’t as numerous as in previous seasons, there are a few potential stars.

While players and clubs certainly can agree on contract extensions during the winter, it’s less common for players who have yet to reach arbitration. The only long-term extensions signed this past offseason were between Dee Gordon and the Miami Marlins and Brandon Crawford and the San Francsisco Giants — and, in both cases, the relevant player was entering his second year of arbitration. Last year around this time, I discussed potential position-player candidates for extensions, and named eight players. Of those eight, four agreed to extensions: Brian Dozier, Juan Lagares, Adam Eaton, and Christian Yelich, although Dozier’s deal did not cover any free agent seasons. Adding Lagares, Eaton, and Yelich to the list from last year, here are the players who’ve been extended in the recent past.

Recent Pre-Arbitration Contract Extensions
Name Team OBP SLG wRC+ WAR Contract (Year/$M) Service Time
Mike Trout Angels .432 .557 176 10.5 6/144.5 2.070
Matt Carpenter Cardinals .392 .481 146 6.9 6/52.0 2.012
Andrelton Simmons Braves .296 .396 91 4.6 7/58.0 1.125
Starling Marte Pirates .343 .441 122 4.6 5/35.0 1.070
Jason Kipnis Indians .366 .452 129 4.4 6/52.5 2.075
Christian Yelich Marlins .362 .402 117 4.4 7/49.6 1.069
Juan Lagares Mets .321 .382 101 4.0 4/23.0 1.160
Yan Gomes Indians .345 .481 130 3.6 6/23.0 1.083
Adam Eaton White Sox .362 .401 117 3.0 5/23.5 2.030
Paul Goldschmidt Diamondback .359 .490 124 2.9 5/32.0 1.059
Allen Craig Cardinals .354 .522 137 2.7 5/31.0 2.077
Jedd Gyorko Padres .301 .444 111 2.5 5/35.0 1.016
Anthony Rizzo Cubs .342 .463 117 1.8 7/41.0 1.040

While the Allen Craig contract has not worked out, and Jedd Gyorko was unloaded to the Cardinals this offseason, the above contracts are some of the very best (for clubs) in the majors. Dan Szymborksi recently listed his 25 most team-friendly contract situations, and Marte, Rizzo, and Trout all made the list. In his most recent edition of the trade-value series, Dave Cameron ranked Trout first among all players, while Goldschmidt was third, Rizzo was seventh, and Marte, Simmons, and Yelich all cracked the top 30. Yan Gomes and Jason Kipnis also appeared on that list. Matt Carpenter, meanwhile, has worked out well for the Cardinals and Eaton put in a solid season for the White Sox, while Lagares struggled through injuries and will begin this season as the fourth outfielder for the New York Mets.

Read the rest of this entry »


Effectively Wild Episode 826: 2016 Season Preview Series: Kansas City Royals

Ben and Sam preview the Royals’ season with Kansas City Star columnist Sam Mellinger, and George talks to Kansas City Star Royals beat writer Rustin Dodd (at 28:04).


Just How Quickly Did Ichiro Used to Get Down the Line?

As far as topic ideas go, they’re typically the product of one of three circumstances:

  1. stumbling upon a unique storyline or stat that could serve as the root of an interesting/fun article
  2. reacting to a recent transaction
  3. asking a question that leads to an unshakable curiosity

Door number one is probably the most common. Door number two is the majority of the offseason, and while those sometimes feel contrived, they’re the most necessary and topical. Door number three is almost always the most fun, both for the writer and reader.

What follows is sort of a mixture of what’s behind doors one and three. See, I was reading an article the other day written by Mike Petriello, formerly of FanGraphs and who’s now doing excellent work for MLB.com, usually using or explaining Statcast numbers. Mike wrote about which players, according to Statcast, got down the line from home to first the fastest. Billy Hamilton wasn’t the fastest, but he was third-fastest. Dee Gordon was second. Billy Burns, surprisingly, or maybe not, was number one. No matter the order, these three guys are the kind of guys you’d expect. They’re young, they’re obviously extremely fast, they steal plenty of bases, they’re all very relevant; this all passes the smell test, and why shouldn’t it?

But Mike’s leaderboard went five deep. And there was a tie for fifth place:

Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 8.16.07 AM

Mike’s parenthetical bewilderment says it all. Ichiro! Ichiro is still one of the five fastest players (from home to first) in baseball at 41 years old! Let’s run through our smell test checklist from just a second ago and apply the criteria to Ichiro. Young? Ha, nope. Obviously extremely fast? Eh, debatable, at this point. Steal plenty of bases? Nope. Very relevant? Mostly when pitching.

This is when the unshakable curiosity took over. If Ichiro at 41 is one of the five fastest down the line in baseball, how fast could he have been in the early 2000s? Let’s begin with a quick Google query, our search terms being: “ichiro home to first time.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Paul Sporer Baseball Chat — 2/25/16

11:57
Eno or Paul? Paul or Eno?: Hi Eno…or Paul,

11:57
Eno Sarris: It’s Paul!!!

11:58
Eno Sarris: If you watch Broad City, you’ll recognize this fire af jam from last week’s premier. It’s great:

11:58
Eno Sarris: Let’s talk some baseball!

11:58
Ryan: Dynasty league — Michael Brantley or Justin Upton?

11:59
Eno Sarris: Going Upton here. Not only does Brantley have the shoulder this year, but the back from previous year makes him a little sketchy long-term, too.

Read the rest of this entry »


Why We Hate the Diamondbacks

A year ago, the Arizona Diamondbacks went 79-83. Over the winter, they signed Zack Greinke and Tyler Clippard as free agents, plus they notably traded for Shelby Miller and Jean Segura. Reinforced with one of the game’s best pitchers, a quality starter, a good reliever, and a middle infielder with a pulse, we currently have the 2016 Diamondbacks projected to go… 79-83. And not surprisingly, Arizona’s GM doesn’t think we’re going to be right on this one.

Q: Does that make any sense to you? You add Greinke, you add Miller, and the math boys say you are not going to win any more games?

Stewart: “Jack, I think out there there are a lot of people that don’t want us to win. For those people that don’t want us to win, that’s OK. We’re still going to play the game the same way. We embrace the challenge every day of coming out and playing and doing the things that we’re capable of doing. And those who think that we’re a 78-win team, you know what? That’s what they think. When you start making predictions like that and you keep coming up wrong, you lose credibility.”

Q: Why do you think there are people who want you to lose?

Stewart: “I think the way that we do things. We’re a baseball team here. We believe in our team and how we play the game. I just think, in everything, there is always everyone who doesn’t want to see you do well. Obviously, anybody who says we can only win 78 games, they’re either not thinking or they’re not believing that what we have here is a team that’s capable of winning more games than that. So when I say that there are people out there who do not want us to win, that’s a prime example of that. To think we will only win 78 games? That’s a joke.”

Q: Do you think they are taking a shot at the old school, fundamental approach?

Stewart: “I try not to even think with people like that. I try to think with the people who think logically. And if you are thinking logically and we won 79 games last year, with the additions of Greinke, Miller, Clippard, Segura, people that make your team better, I think it is impossible for us to only win 78 games. Like I said, they predicted we would lose 96 last year.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Build a Better WAR Metric, Part 3

Before we talk about baseball, let’s talk about the other three major sports. You’re on your own 20 yard line, you march down field on a series of plays, but ultimately, you punt. Or, you march down field and move far enough for a tough field goal that gets made. All those running and passing plays aren’t considered any differently based on the results. The RB got 25 yards on 4 running plays, and no one matches it up to the end result.

In hockey and basketball, a great pass that doesn’t ultimately lead to a goal or basket goes away like a fart in the wind. No one tracks it, and if they do, it’s not considered anything close to the impact of an assist that led to a score.

Why the difference? I think it’s because of the stop-start nature of football, that the “sequence” ends after each play, and the whole drive is 2-5 football minutes or 5-15 human minutes. In hockey and basketball, turnovers happen often enough and each drive lasts 10-30 seconds in sport or human minutes. I think that’s the reason.

So, let’s talk about the leadoff triple. Billy Hamilton gets on third base, and the next three batters strike out. He’s stranded there, no runs score. A fart in the wind triple? Or something much more tangible? Jarrod Dyson gets on third, the next batter hits a medium fly ball out, far enough to let Dyson score. The next two batters strike out. One run scores. That triple is obviously tangible.

How do you see these two triples?


Evaluating the 2016 Prospects: Los Angeles Angels

Other clubs: Astros, Braves, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Indians, OriolesRedsRed Sox, Rockies, Royals, Tigers, White Sox.

Let’s get this out of the way up front: this is not a high-potential system. Joe Gatto sits at the top of these rankings because someone had to. That’s not meant to demean Gatto’s abilities, or anyone else’s in the Angels’ minor league pool, but it’s just a product of owner Arte Moreno’s and upper management’s decisions the last five years. Most of the top talent has been included in trades to bring in less volatile assets at the big league level. A lot of early picks have been given up to sign present-value free agents, and the draft philosophy has been mostly focused on safety rather than upside.

That said, the system isn’t designed terribly to the end of supplementing their strategy for the parent club. They get their stars from outside the organization, and they will be able to fill in the gaps with a lot of role players, upside bench bats and decent pitching depth that this group should be able to provide. So while, in a vacuum, the system may seem like a disappointment, it just puts a little more pressure on the front office to make sound major league signings and hold them over for a few acquisition seasons. Management deserves credit for bringing in some projectable talent in the last couple drafts, with many of them figuring to restock the upper levels of the minor leagues in due time.

Read the rest of this entry »


Two Comps for Two Views of Carlos Rodon

From what any of us can tell, the American League is going to be close, and maybe closer than ever. It wouldn’t appear that there are any great teams, and it wouldn’t appear that there are any bad teams, and my favorite thing about this kind of landscape is it means a whole season could conceivably be determined by the fate of one single player. One player greatly under-achieving could knock a given team out of the hunt. On the other side of things, one player greatly improving could push a given team into first place. The closer the pack, the less it could take to emerge. That’s the theory, anyhow.

The White Sox are one of those teams you can look at and imagine 90 wins or 90 losses. Last year’s version almost got to 90 losses, but then this year’s version promises to be better and deeper. And as you get to thinking about the White Sox’s upside, you get to thinking about Carlos Rodon, who’s going to slide into the rotation behind Chris Sale and Jose Quintana. It wouldn’t be a total shock if Rodon were to struggle. But then, if Rodon were to put his skills together, that could send Chicago to the playoffs. So Rodon should be what people like to call an “x-factor,” and in thinking about Rodon, I’ve come up with two other names. One name you can link to Rodon’s signature pitch, and one name you could maybe consider as Rodon’s future.

Read the rest of this entry »