Team Ball-in-Play Analysis: AL West

Over the last few weeks we have taken a position-by-position look at ball-in-play data for both hitters and pitchers, assessing their respective contact quality/management ability. Next up: a macro-type evaluation of overall team performance in those areas. An overview of this series appeared in this space last week.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll take a division-by-division look at each team’s granular data through the All-Star break, ultimately comparing their actual won-lost records to projected ones based on exit speed/angle of every ball in play hit and allowed by each club. About 90 games’ worth of balls in play is a fairly substantial sample size, one that enables us to make fairly educated guesses about the true talent level of each team. Today, we’ll begin to drill deeper into the data.

First up, the AL West:

The left two-thirds of the table is broken into three sections, projecting team winning percentages solely via projected runs scored/allowed based on BIP exit speed/angle (first three columns), and then by first adding in actual offensive and defensive K and BB (next three columns), and lastly, by adding in net team defense vis-à-vis their opponents (next three columns).

Net team defense is measured by comparing both clubs’ actual vs. projected runs scored and allowed to the projected run-scoring environment based on exit speed/angle of all BIP in those games. It encompasses not only individual player defense, but the impact of extra bases taken on batted balls, the impact of overshifting for and against, and, alas, random chance. The amount in the “PIT ERA” column in the “+ K & BB” section is multiplied by the team defensive factor (under 1.00 is good, under 1.00, not so much), resulting in the “PIT ERA” value in the “+ TM DEF” section.

Team projected and actual won-lost records as of the All Star break are listed in the rightmost columns, along with the difference between the two. Now, let’s dig a little deeper into the BIP portfolios of the AL West clubs.

SEATTLE MARINERS
Yes, they sat 8.5 games behind the first-place Rangers and 3.0 behind the second-place Astros at the break, but a strong case could and still can be made that the Mariners just might be the best club in the division. Whether they’re good enough to make up their still somewhat significant divisional deficit is another story, however.

For eons, the Mariner offense has been undercut in absolute terms by its pitcher-friendly home park, Safeco Field. Recently, Safeco’s effects have been tamed a bit, as the left-center and center-field fences have been moved in, while at the same time, the club spent big bucks to upgrade its offensive personnel. Very quietly, the Mariners have become an above-average offensive club.

Only the Orioles have achieved better fly-ball contact quality among AL clubs; the Mariners “should have” batted .354 AVG-1.018 SLG in the air through the break, compared to AL norms of .331 AVG-.908 SLG. They also posted the best grounder contact quality in the AL, with projected production of .250 AVG-.273 SLG compared to the AL averages of .238 AVG-.260 SLG. Overall, their projected marks of .337 AVG-.558 SLG (5.76 runs/9 IP, or offensive “ERA”) on all BIP narrowly fits in within the average range, as their fly-ball and liner frequency rates were both comfortably below league average.

On the mound, Mariner hurlers not only have allowed a lower than average number of line drives, they have also allowed the least authoritative liners in the AL, with projected liner performance allowed of .653 AVG-.852 SLG, compared to a league average of .662 AVG-.877 SLG. Other than that, their team BIP allowed portfolio is pretty vanilla, easily within the league-average range. Based on BIP alone, they posted a projected winning percentage of .528 at the break.

The Mariners are helped on both sides of the ball by better than league average K-BB profiles, particularly on the pitching side. This nudges them into slightly better-than-average territory offensively and defensively, nudging their projected winning percentage up to .546, before taking net team defense into consideration.

Poor team defense has deeply wounded the Mariners in recent years, taking them out of contention in what should have been the sweet spot of their window of contention. The good news here is that their defense is no longer abysmal; it’s just not very good. Their team defensive multiplier at the break is 1.024, with the biggest hit coming on ground balls, on which they posted a 1.088 multiplier, the third worst in the AL.

So, slightly above-average projected offense (best in the division), slightly above-average projected pitching (second best), and mediocre (but still second best in the division) team defense adds up to a projected winning percentage of .534, narrowly the best in the West. This is three games better than their actual record at the break. As you’ll see, four of the five clubs in the division had projected records within three games of their actual marks.

HOUSTON ASTROS
If we were projecting records based upon BIP frequency/exit speed/angle alone, the Astros would easily be the class of the division. Despite putting nearly 200 fewer balls in play than the Mariners through the break, they hit very nearly as many fly balls and liners overall. They hit their flies (projected .351 AVG-.991 ALG) and liners (.672 AVG-.904 SLG) harder than the AL average, and good old Jose Altuve led the way, enabling them to tie for the second-highest team liner rate in the AL. Overall, their projected .339 AVG-.574 SLG on offensive BIP translates to a 5.96 offensive “ERA,” easily the best in the division.

On the mound, the Astros excel at managing contact. They simply don’t have an area of weakness. Their BIP frequencies are solid, as they allowed the second-lowest fly-ball rate in the league at the break. They also absolutely throttle BIP authority; they allowed projected fly-ball authority of just .317 AVG-.817 SLG, second best in the AL to the White Sox. Their projected grounder production allowed of .225 AVG-.246 SLG was best in the circuit. Overall, on BIP alone, they posted a projected 5.17 ERA, best in the division, again second to the White Sox in the AL. On BIP alone, their projected .570 winning percentage easily leads the division.

Unfortunately, we then have to add offensive K and BB to the mix. Sure, the Astros draw plenty of walks, a clear positive, but that is more than outweighed by their massive offensive K rate, second only to the Rays in the AL. This drags their projected offensive ERA way down to 4.37, in the league-average range and second to the Mariners in the West. On the pitching side, the Astro staff is better than league average in both K and BB rate, boosting them past the White Sox into the top spot in the entire AL in projected ERA at 3.87. With K and BB added into the mix, the Astros remains ahead of the M’s in projected winning percentage at .546.

That leaves the not-so-small matter of net team defense, however. The Astros fail horribly in this metric, with a 1.065 team mark, last in the West and third worst in the AL. They lag across the board with a 1.094 fly ball, 1.059 line drive and 1.070 grounder multiplier. To me, the biggest worry is the outfield defense. How about this nugget: through the break the Astros hit exactly zero line-drive triples, while they allowed… 15. That’s too big of a disparity to be a fluke, and I’d venture to say that Carlos Gomez was the primary culprit.

The Astros’ run-prevention remains above average — and best in the West despite the negative contribution of their defense. Their overall projected winning percentage of .529 falls just short of Seattle’s, ranking second in the division, and just one game behind their actual record at the break.

TEXAS RANGERS
Before delving too far into this exceptional case, a couple words about the Rangers. I picked them to win the West in the spring, and really enjoy watching these guys play. There’s plenty of young talent in place, and more on the way to supplement the big-league product either directly or indirectly via trade.

That said, how were these guys 18 games over .500 and 5.5 games clear of the division at the break? What do they do really well? Offensively, they were the only AL club to rank in the average range on projected fly-ball (.340 AVG-.912 SLG), liner (.664 AVG-.876 SLG) and grounder (.237 AVG-.258 SLG) production. Their overall projected .330 AVG-.538 SLG and 5.43 offensive “ERA” ranks squarely in the middle of the division, and league. It’s pretty much the same story with regard to projected production allowed: their 5.48 ERA also ranks in the middle of the division and league.

So, we’re looking at a .496 club on net BIP quality alone. It gets much worse when we add K and BB back into the mix. Offensively, the effect isn’t significant; the club doesn’t whiff or walk very much, and while their 4.23 offensive “ERA” mark remains in the league average range, the Angels jump just ahead of the Rangers, dropping them to fourth in the division. The big problem is on the pitching side, where the Rangers rank last in K rate and very close to the worst in BB rate. This boosts their projected ERA to 4.75, dead last in the AL, let alone the division. Taking all but net team defense into account, the Rangers projected winning percentage is mere fractions away from being worst in the AL.

Net team defense, however, is their friend. Their overall team multiplier of .950 is fourth best in the AL, and stands as the only above-average mark in the West. Their infield defense has led the way, with an .854 mark that ranks second in the AL, largely due to strong work by Adrian Beltre and Elvis Andrus on the left side. This drags the club’s projected ERA down to 4.51, still higher than average but not nearly the worst in either the league or even the division.

Overall, this gives the Rangers a projected .468 winning percentage at the break, good for a 42-48 record that is a whopping 12 games worse than their actual record at the break. The good news for Ranger fans is two-, or even threefold: 1. Yu Darvish should help a bit, 2. The additional wins accumulated by the club to date are in the books, and can’t be given back, and 3. The Ranger front office realizes their club’s vulnerability, and has the talent and financial resources to shore the club up for the stretch run.

LOS ANGELES ANGELS
Well, this sure is an interesting situation. As we discuss this offense, bear in mind that Mike Trout in his prime plays for this club. Offensively, despite the presence of Trout and Albert Pujols, the club’s projected fly-ball production of .310 AVG-.777 SLG is second worst in the AL, ahead of only the Yankees. Only two NL clubs had worse marks, and their pitchers have to bat. On all BIP types combined, the Angels remain second worst to the Yanks, with a projected .319 AVG-.496 SLG and 4.84 offensive ERA. On the mound, the Angels allow a lot of fly balls, but manage authority fairly well, particularly on the ground. Overall, their projected production allowed of .327 AVG-.552 SLG and 5.53 ERA on all BIP ranks last in the division, but almost exactly matches the league average. Largely due to their poor offensive ball-striking, their projected winning percentage of .434 on BIP alone ranks last in the West.

Adding back the Ks and BBs is a positive development for the Angels, at least on the offensive end. The club has the lowest K rate in the game, as even some of its power threats like Pujols and C.J. Cron strike out very infrequently. By not striking out, their offense rises from the cellar to a near league-average “ERA” of 4.23. Conversely, they take a bit of a hit on the mound, as their K and BB rates are both below league average. Their projected ERA of 4.55 ranks above only Texas in the division, and is third worst in the AL overall.

Team defense is also an issue for the Angels, with the club posting an overall 1.053 multiplier through the break. Their infield was the primary culprit: the club recorded a 1.062 multiplier on ground balls. With Andrelton Simmons back in the lineup, this should be less of a concern moving forward. Overall, the club’s projected winning percentage of .446 translates to a 40-49 record, three games better than their actual mark at the break.

OAKLAND ATHLETICS
The A’s first-half offense was characterized by a strong BIP mix (high fly-ball matched with a low pop-up rate) and weak BIP authority. The club ranked well below average in projected fly-ball (.307 AVG-.805 SLG), line-drive (.656 AVG-.850 SLG) and grounder (.221 AVG-.242 SLG) production, ranking last in the AL by far in the last category. Overall, their projected .320 AVG-.513 SLG and 5.03 offensive “ERA” on all BIP ranks ahead of only the Angels in the division, and three AL clubs overall.

On the mound, the A’s managed authority on the ground very well (projected .229 AVG-.250 SLG, third best in the AL), but yielded well harder than league-average authority in the air (projected .350 AVG-.978 SLG). It evens out to an almost exactly league-average projected 5.51 ERA on all BIP, though with the departure of Rich Hill, things could get ugly moving forward. On BIP alone, the A’s posted a .455 winning percentage through the break.

A’s hitters struck out and walked less than the AL average, with their low K rate enabling them to move ahead of the White Sox in AL projected production, with a still below-average 4.09 offensive “ERA,” worst in the West. On the mound, the club is hurt by its relatively low K rate, moving its 4.42 projected ERA up and out of the league average range. The club’s projected winning percentage prior to the inclusion of net team defense remains nearly unchanged at .461.

Like most of the West clubs, the A’s are hurt by their net team defense, posting an AL worst 1.080 overall multiplier. They’re weak across all BIP types, with marks of 1.105, 1.081 and 1.060 on fly balls, liners and grounders, respectively. Bank on the outfield being the particular problem moving forward, with the departure of Josh Reddick. Their projected winning percentage of .423 translates to a 38-51 record, identical to their performance through the break.