Think of the stereotypical curveball thrown to start an at-bat. Picture it in your mind’s eye. It’s big and loopy, starting high and then swooping into the zone to steal a strike from the incredulous batter. It’s an optical illusion, a strike disguised as a ball. It’s probably more or less 12-6 when it comes to break; a perfect rainbow from pitcher’s hand to catcher’s mitt. And if it’s an active player throwing it, you’re probably picturing Rich Hill.

In some ways, you’re not wrong. Rich Hill does throw a ton of curveballs, and first-pitch curveballs are in the strike zone far more often than hooks thrown on every other count. Hill isn’t the foremost practitioner of the art, however. Of the 359 pitchers who faced 100 batters and threw at least one curveball last year, Hill had the 41st-highest first-pitch curveball rate at 32.4%. He was just outside the top 10% of the league, not out front by a mile.

In fact, relative to how often he throws his curve, Hill is one of the least likely pitchers to throw it on the first pitch. On non-first-pitches, Hill threw it 44.4% of the time, 12 percentage points more often. Only 12 pitchers had a bigger negative differential when it came to starting batters off with curveballs relative to the rest of their pitch mix.
Read the rest of this entry »

Over the past week and a half, we’ve published our annual season preview, ranking the league’s players by position based on a blend of our projections (a 50/50 split between ZiPS and Steamer) and our manually maintained playing time estimates courtesy of Jason Martinez of RosterResource fame. The result is a document that rivals In Search of Lost Time for length, though we’ve striven to make it a touch more readable. If you happen to have missed any of those installments, you can use the handy navigation widget above to catch up. And remember, if you’re a fan of say, the Dodgers, and don’t want to see any other teams’ rankings but theirs, you can use the “View by Team” feature in any of those pieces, and look at that, all Dodgers. No stinkin’ Astros for you.

Today, I’m going to summarize the results. We’ll look at some tables and pick out a few interesting tidbits, but first, it’s important to remember that this exercise captures a snapshot of how we project teams to perform now. Teams aren’t static, however. Since we’ve published our rankings, for instance, Gavin Lux has been optioned. Colin Poche likely needs Tommy John. Jordan Montgomery didn’t make the Yankees’ Opening Day roster. Hell, Franchy Cordero was traded to the Royals about 12 hours before the right field rankings were set to go live. Guys suffer injuries, lose playing time due to underperformance, and get traded. That’s why we maintain a Team WAR Totals page, which lists projected positional WAR by team and updates regularly throughout the season as we learn more about who is likely to take the field every day and what shape they’ll be in when they do. Now, don’t be alarmed — the WAR numbers you see there may vary slightly from what you see on the positional power rankings, mostly because those figures are aware of the injuries and transactions that have altered our playing time estimates since the power rankings went live. The z-scores I include later uses the WAR from the Team WAR Totals page. It’s a good page. Read the rest of this entry »

Ben Lindbergh, Meg Rowley, and Baseball Prospectus editor-in-chief Craig Goldstein banter about whether official scorers will be more or less accurate when they’re working from home. Then they conduct the second of two drafts that have been presented on back-to-back episodes, completing the set by selecting five things apiece that they’re excited to see (or not see) during the shortened 2020 season. (On the preceding episode, they drafted five things apiece that they’ll miss this season.)

Audio intro: White Denim, "Good News"
Audio outro: Paul Weller, "Here’s the Good News"

Link to article about official scorers
Link to Scherzer photo tweet
Link to Chris Taylor’s satisfying-sounding home run
Link to Ben on the strikeout-rate increase streak
Link to Ben on sabermetrics meeting the 60-game season
Link to Ben on embracing small-sample randomness
Link to photo of masked pitching coach covering mouth
Link to Rob Arthur on bat cracks in 2014
Link to Rob Arthur on bat cracks in 2020
Link to Ben Clemens on non-playoff teams improving
Link to Hawk-Eye intro
Link to Alyssa Nakken video
Link to Five and Dive podcast archive

 iTunes Feed (Please rate and review us!)
 Sponsor Us on Patreon
 Facebook Group
 Effectively Wild Wiki
 Twitter Account
 Get Our Merch!
 Email Us: podcast@fangraphs.com

Podcast (effectively-wild): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Ben Lindbergh, Meg Rowley, and Baseball Prospectus editor-in-chief Craig Goldstein banter about Ben’s latest bad dream about baseball writing and the Toronto (or Pittsburgh?) Blue Jays’ last-minute relocation. Then they conduct the first of two drafts that will be presented on back-to-back episodes, beginning by selecting five things apiece that they’ll miss about “normal” baseball during the shortened 2020 season. (Next time, they’ll draft five things apiece that they’re excited to see.)

Audio intro: Pulp, "You’re a Nightmare"
Audio outro: The Black Keys, "Sit Around and Miss You"

Link to the large baby
Link to Sam on booing the Astros
Link to Ben on the best and worst 60-game spans
Link to FanGraphs 60-game leaderboards
Link to Zach Kram on WAR in 2020
Link to Ben Clemens on Chico

 iTunes Feed (Please rate and review us!)
 Sponsor Us on Patreon
 Facebook Group
 Effectively Wild Wiki
 Twitter Account
 Get Our Merch!
 Email Us: podcast@fangraphs.com

Podcast (effectively-wild): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

The Buffalo Blue Jays? The Pittsburgh Blue Jays? The Biggio-Bichette-Vlad Jr. Traveling Sons of All-Stars and Motor Kings? One way or another Canada’s only Major League Baseball team will be the Toronto Blue Jays in name only during the 2020 season. That’s the upshot of a decision handed down by the Canadian government on Saturday, not because of anything the Blue Jays or MLB has done wrong, but because the United States has done such a poor job of containing the spread of COVID-19 that letting teams travel across the international border between the two countries has been deemed a public health risk. It’s a decision that’s left the Blue Jays and the rest of baseball scrambling for alternatives given that the team opens the season on July 24, with its home opener scheduled for July 29.

Already it was clear that one of the substantial logistical hurdles for any league attempting to play its games in the midst of a pandemic — the wisdom and morality of which are questionable at best, but a topic for another day — is the variation in local laws and mandates, particularly when it comes to quarantine rules and guidelines. Until late last week, the defending champion Nationals weren’t sure they could play at Nationals Park because of a directive for those in close contact with individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 to self-quarantine for 14 days, and a similar situation with respect to the Dodgers in Los Angeles is still being untangled.

But while those situations may tilt in favor of the teams — testifying either to the outsized importance of sports within our culture or to a misplacement of priorities (take your pick) — that’s not the case with regards to the Blue Jays. With the U.S. regularly breaking single-day records for new coronavirus cases, and the U.S.-Canada border already closed to nonessential travel through at least August 21, on Saturday the Canadian government denied the Blue Jays permission to play home games in Toronto, which the same day reported just 43 new cases of COVID-19 infections. The Blue Jays had previously received an exemption allowing them to host their summer camp at the Rogers Centre with players and staff operating under a strict “modified quarantine” in which they were collectively isolated at the facility, which includes a hotel. Read the rest of this entry »

2:03	Jay Jaffe: Good afternoon, and welcome to my almost-Opening Day chat. As I’ll be part of a group chat later this week (Dodgers-Giants, 10 ET on Thursday night), I’m going to work a bit short here.

2:03	Jay Jaffe: First a bit of housekeeping while the queue fills…  My latest piece on the Blue Jays’ quest to find a temporary new home, is here https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-blue-jays-are-in-search-of-a-temporary…

2:04	Jay Jaffe: A very cool thing that Dan wrote about the odds that somebody hits .400 in this short season is here https://blogs.fangraphs.com/toppling-ted-the-60-game-season-and-the-40…

2:04	Jay Jaffe: And a very cool thing that Sean and Dave did behind the scenes, showing the best 60-game stretches in a variety of categories since 1974, is here https://blogs.fangraphs.com/instagraphs/whats-the-best-that-could-happ…

2:06	Jay Jaffe: Via that last one, did you know George Brett had a 60-game stretch in 1980 when he hit .473/.522/.751 (the record for batting average in that span)? You do now. Some guy named Barry holds the records for the other two metrics.

2:06	Jay Jaffe: and now, onward…

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the ways that the baseball of yesteryear was different from baseball today was the importance of batting average. With a pitching philosophy that envisioned lots and lots of balls being hit into play and no gauntlet of modern relief pitchers to face, far more at-bats ended with a ball being handled by a defensive player. In 2019, 63% of plate appearances ended with a ball being hit into play. In 1919, that figure was 81%. With half as many fieldable balls, it’s hardly a shock that league batting averages have declined. The effect would be even larger, too, but batting average on balls hit into play was higher in 2019 (.298) than in 1919 (.282).

Hitting .400 was never an easy feat, but it wasn’t some wild, once-in-a-lifetime occurrence when it did happen. The .400 mark has been eclipsed 34 times in major league history, give or take (the number varies depending on just what you consider a major league team in the wild world of 1870s baseball). Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941 and that was it, the last time a major leaguer hit .400 over a season. It’s more than just the lower league batting averages. Baseball’s .252 batting average in 2019 was still higher than in 17 seasons before 1941. Baseball has trended in a more competitive direction and as a league becomes more competitive, you generally expect the differences between players to shrink. That’s true for batting average, too. Just look at the simplest measure of dispersion, standard deviation:

The standard deviation has gotten smaller as time has progressed. Using this simple method, Ted Williams’s .406 in 1941 was 4.46 standard deviations better than the mean batting average of .262 (z-score). A z-score of 4.46 in 2019 only represents a .370 batting average. Nobody’s hit that mark recently, either, but .370 certainly doesn’t feel like anywhere near the same hurdle.

Since it’s the obvious next question, here are the best batting averages by Z-Score. Again, there are more robust ways to look at this, but we’re scrawling on envelope-backs, not landing astronauts on the moon:

Read the rest of this entry »

This is the eighth in a series of baseball-themed lessons we’re calling FanGraphs Prep. In light of so many parents suddenly having their school-aged kids learning from home, we hope that these units offer a thoughtfully designed, baseball-themed supplement to the schoolwork your student might already be doing. The previous units can be found here.

Overview: A short unit centered on understanding the difference between context-neutral stats and context-specific stats. Both tell us very different things about what happens on the field. What’s the difference between them and how do we use them?

Learning Objectives:

• Identify and apply a run-expectancy matrix.
• Explain the difference between context-specific and context-neutral statistics.
• Evaluate which type of statistic to use in a given situation.

Target Grade-Level: 9-10

Daily Activities:

Day 1

At the end of 2019, Pete Alonso led all of baseball with 53 home runs. But all those home runs weren’t created equally. Thirty-one of them came with no runners on, while the remaining 22 were hit with at least one runner on base. Should those two- and three-run home runs count for more than all those solo shots? That’s the question at the center of our lesson today: Should we take the game context into account when evaluating players? Not to spoil anything, but the answer is both yes and no. Read the rest of this entry »

Deadline deals, streaking Pirates, and more — it’s time to decide where to improve the team in this week’s look at the OOTP Brewers. Read the rest of this entry »

This morning, Jason Martinez took us through the back-end of the bullpen rankings. Now, we conclude the player rankings (a summary will run tomorrow) the same way most great baseball games do: with elite bullpens.

A substantial caveat for readers: There are some positions for which there is a cleaner, wider gap between the top teams and the bottom, where we can more definitively say that some teams are better than others. For instance, it’s clear the best center field situation belongs to the Angels because of Mike Trout, and that Cleveland belongs at or near the top of the shortstop hierarchy because of Francisco Lindor. Relief pitching is not one of these positions. Sure, we have the bullpens ranked, and you can see their statistical projections above and below, but notice the margins here, and that they’re even thinner than usual because of a shortened season, and recall how volatile relievers are generally. Winning a single, close, coin-flip game is more significant this year than ever before, which means bullpen performance will simultaneously be as meaningful and as volatile as ever.

I’m interested in the benefits of stocking bullpens with pitchers who have varied release points, as well as mechanical looks and repertoire shapes that are different from one another, so I’ve included rudimentary overlays of some of each team’s reliever release points to hopefully give visual learners a more concrete idea of what I’m talking about, while also highlighting which teams seem to care more about having varied looks than others. Read the rest of this entry »