Team Ball-in-Play Analysis: NL Central

Rejuvenated by a week away from baseball altogether, I’m back with the last in a series of articles on team ball-in-play profiles. In the last installment, we examined the AL Central. We’ve saved the best — well, at least the division with the best team — for last, as we take a look at the NL Central. As we have previously, we’ll use granular data such as plate-appearance frequencies and BIP exit speed/angle as of the All-Star break to project “true-talent” club records.

Though the break is pretty far in the rearview mirror at this point, those 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. We’ll compare our projections to club’s actual records at the break, examining the reasons for material variation along the way.

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 NL Central clubs.

CHICAGO CUBS
We start with the game’s best team, and biggest story of the season to date. It’s hard to believe now that this team found itself in quite the tailspin prior to the All Star break. That was just a blip; the underlying data confirms that this team is as good as it has been of late, and as it was in the season’s early stages. It all begins with solid contact quality at the plate, and strong contact-management on the mound. Other teams hit the ball harder; the club’s offensive contact authority is in the average range overall, though a bit above in the air. Cub hitters “should have” hit .342 AVG-.949 SLG in the air in this first half based on exit speed/angle, compared to the NL average of .326 AVG-.876 SLG. Their biggest offensive BIP strength was a strong batted-ball mix: their fly-ball and liner rates were both well above league average. Overall, their projected offensive “ERA” on all balls in play was 5.78, second in the division and league at the break.

The story was quite similar on the mound. Again, it was more a matter of BIP mix than authority that propelled the Cubs near the top of the league in contact-management. They did limit fly-ball damage: opposing hitters “should have” hit .306 AVG-.811 SLG in the air, the second-best mark in the league. They allowed the lowest liner and the second-highest grounder rate in the NL through the break. Jake Arrieta and Kyle Hendricks are great contact-managers, and Jon Lester and John Lackey are good ones. The club’s projected ERA on BIP alone of 4.77 was 0.01 higher than the Nats and Dodgers, who tied for the NL lead at the break. On BIP alone, the Cubs were a .595 ballclub, best in the NL.

Adding K and BB back into the equation is a major boon to the Cubs. They excel in two of the four categories — offensive BB rate and pitching K rate — and are in the average range in the two others. They were the only club in either league with an offensive BB rate over two full STD above average at the break. This keeps their projected offensive “ERA” over one STD above league average at 4.61, third in the NL. Their pitching staff K rate was third highest in the NL at the break, driving their projected ERA down to 3.53, also third in the league. The Cubs’ projected winning percentage prior to adjustment for net team defense was .631, behind both the Nats and Dodgers at the break. So far, this is a really good, though not great, club.

Adding team defense into the mix changes all of that, raising the Cubs to another level. Their overall defensive multiplier of .891 is the best in the NL, over two STD better than league average. They are above average all over the field but are particularly excellent in the outfield, posting .850 multipliers on both fly balls and liners. Cub opponents batted only .161 AVG-.252 SLG on in-play fly balls in the first half, compared to projected levels of .196 AVG-.307 SLG. That’s good for second best in the NL. An .850 multiplier on liners isn’t just good, it’s outlandish. The Cubs and their opponents hit their liners almost equally as hard; the Cubs hit .678 AVG-.875 SLG on theirs, their opponents hit .601 AVG-.737 SLG. There’s some luck in there, to be sure, but it’s accompanied by a bunch of defensive excellence, as well. Defense puffs up their projected winning percentage at the break to .683, way ahead of the pack in both leagues. This translates to a projected 60-28 record at the break, seven games better than their actual mark, but much more indicative of this team’s true-talent level.

ST. LOUIS CARDINALS
I was skeptical as to whether the Cards would strongly contend prior to this season; their farm seemed to be drying up, their nucleus was aging, and I wasn’t enamored with some of their offseason additions. Should have known better. These guys hit, even the ones who didn’t in the minors. They crush the ball and use the field. They hit a lot of fly balls and hit them harder than any other NL club. Their projected performance of .356 AVG-.996 SLG in the air was by far the best in the league at the break. Despite ranking at the bottom of the NL in liner rate at the break, their projected offensive “ERA” of 5.80 nosed out the Cubs for the NL top spot.

The staff’s contact-management ability was fairly ordinary in the first half, with one clear positive exception: the Cards yielded the most grounders in the NL, at a rate over two STD higher than league average. Those grounders were hit quite weakly, with projected production of .229 AVG-.250 SLG, second best in the NL. Adam Wainwright was the leading architect of this team performance. Thanks to their grounder-centric profile, the Cards’ projected ERA on BIP alone was a better-than-league-average 5.22 despite a higher than average liner rate allowed. On BIP alone, the Cards posted a projected winning percentage of .552.

Like the Cubs, the Cards are helped by the addition of K and BB into the mix. Though they lack the hammer that is the Cubs’ offensive BB rate, they are materially better than average in three of the four measures, all but pitching K rate. Offensively, their solid K-BB spread enabled them to increase their ever-so-slight projected offensive “ERA” lead over the Cubs, by 4.70 to 4.61. Their low pitching staff K rate enabled them to reduce their projected ERA to 4.06, still within the league-average range. Their projected winning percentage before adjustment for defense increases to .572, best among NL wild-card candidates.

The Cards fare much better in my defensive metric than in most publicly available ones. Their overall defensive multiplier of .957 ranked third in the NL at the break, largely on the strength of a .884 mark on grounders. The Cards batted .242 AVG-.267 SLG on grounders in the first half, their opponents, just .205 AVG-.221 SLG. Though a small piece of that difference is due to their hitters’ advantage in BIP authority (and their avoidance of overshifts, thanks to their ability to use the field), and perhaps another small piece is due to random chance, a big chunk of it is due to a defensive advantage. Adjusted for defense, the Cards projected winning percentage rises to .594, or a 52-36 record, six games better than their actual mark at the break. This makes them a true-talent wild card club.

PITTSBURGH PIRATES
The Bucs have been the personification of league average for much of the season, but still find themselves in the wild-card race. On BIP alone, their offense grades out slightly above average, with a projected 5.53 offensive “ERA” at the break, thanks more to a low pop-up rate and high liner rate than to any notable departure from league-average authority.

On the mound, their relative ability to limit damage in the air (projected .317 AVG-.832 SLG) is their only notable contact-management trait. Their projected ERA of 5.16 on BIP alone was in the average range, but did rank fifth in the NL at the break. On BIP alone, the Bucs recorded a projected winning percentage of .534 at the break.

Adding K and BB back into the mix doesn’t work quite so swimmingly for the Pirates. Their offensive K and BB rates were both in the league-average range at the break, but their pitching K and BB marks were both laggards. Perhaps this is why Francisco Liriano was extracted from the mix? After adjustment for K and BB, their projected offensive and pitching ERA marks of 4.26 and 4.39 were both in the league-average range at the break. Their projected winning percentage prior to adjustment for defense drops to .485.

The Pirates’ defensive multiplier of .988 is just better than league average, but ranks as only the fourth best in the Central. They grade out as fairly average around the field, with fly-ball, liner and grounder multipliers of 1.122, .917 and 1.015, respectively. The Pirates’ projected ERA drops to 4.34 as a result, with their final projected winning percentage checking in at .491. This translates to a 44-45 record at the break, two games shy of their actual mark.

MILWAUKEE BREWERS
Now for the rebuilding section of the division. On BIP alone, the Brewers reside in the league-average range from both a hitting and pitching perspective. Their offensive authority is pretty average across the board, and their BIP mix is marked only by a noticeably high grounder rate. On the mound, they possess the negative combination of low pop-up and high fly-ball rates, and yielded some of the hardest grounders in the NL in the first half (projected .245 AVG-.267 SLG vs. .237 AVG-.258 SLG league average). Their projected 5.41 offensive and 5.49 pitching ERAs on BIP alone translate to a projected .493 winning percentage.

Adding back the Ks and BBs is pretty bad for the Brew Crew. They grade out poorly in three of the four measures, with a strong offensive BB rate the only exception. Both their projected offensive and pitching ERAs drop out of the average range as a result, to 3.91 and 4.57, respectively. Prior to adjustment for team defense, their projected winning percentage drops sharply to .423.

The Brewers’ team defensive grades out as below average, but not nearly as bad as it does in publicly available metrics, with a multiplier of 1.018. They fare worst on fly balls, with a 1.104 multiplier, and Ryan Braun and Domingo Santana representing the primary culprits. The club’s projected ERA climbs to 4.65 as a result, and their projected winning percentage drops to .414. This is equivalent to 36-51, or two games worse than their actual mark at the break. Alas, due to the departure of Jonathan Lucroy, Jeremy Jeffress and others, the club’s true-talent level is likely even lower at present.

CINCINNATI REDS
Everyone knows how bad the Reds’ pitching has been this season, but their awful offense has kind of slipped under the radar. They posted the lowest overall, line-drive and ground-ball average team exit speed in either league in the first half. Their projected team offensive “ERA” of 4.83, the third worst in the majors, was actually inflated a bit by a high liner rate, surpassed only by the Giants in the first half.

The pitching side of the ledger is as ugly as you might expect: Reds hurlers allowed by far the highest fly-ball rate in either league, and the projected .335 AVG-.921 SLG on those flies was the third loudest in the league. Their projected ERA on BIP alone of 5.81 was the highest in the NL, and the club’s projected winning percentage of .409 was better than only the Braves among NL clubs.

Adding back K and BB is an abject disaster for the Reds, who are materially worse than league average in all four measures, giving them NL-worst projected offensive and pitching ERA marks of 3.60 and 5.05, respectively. Their first-half K-BB futility was particularly stark on the pitching side, where they ranked dead last in both K and BB rate, with the latter over two STD higher than league average. Before adjustment for defense, the Reds’ projected winning percentage checks in at a paltry .337.

The Reds’ one true strength is their team defense: their overall defensive multiplier of .983 is keyed by a strong .873 ground-ball multiplier. Zack Cozart, nearly moved at the deadline, leads a strong overall defensive effort in the infield. This reduces their projected pitching ERA to 4.97, still last in the NL, over one STD worse than league average. The Reds’ adjusted projected winning percentage of .344 translates to a 30-59 record at the break, two wins shy of their actual mark. The Reds have played much better in the second half, as Joey Votto has made outs only occasionally.