Team Ball-in-Play Analysis: NL West

Today, our analysis of granular team ball-in-play data continues. Last time, we examined AL West clubs. Today, we take a macro-type view of the plate appearance frequency and BIP exit speed/angle detail for NL West clubs.

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. Let’s use this information to project true-talent team won-lost records and compare them to their actual marks 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 West clubs.

LOS ANGELES DODGERS
Though the Dodgers trailed the Giants by six games at the break, they outpaced their archrivals utilizing this method, and have cut deeply into San Francisco’s lead in recent weeks. They’ve done this without the services of Clayton Kershaw. Offensively, the club’s ball-impacting skills have been fairly vanilla; while they do hit their liners and grounders harder than the NL average, their projected fly-ball production (.324 AVG-.896 SLG, vs. NL average of .326 AVG-.876 SLG) is in the average range, and their team grounder frequency is well above the norm. In a sense, they had taken on the persona of recently demoted Yasiel Puig. Overall, their projected offensive “ERA” of 5.33 on BIP alone ranks third in the division, and almost exactly matches the NL average of 5.34.

The club’s main strength is their pitching staff’s ability to throttle contact. How do they do it? Let me count the ways. By far, they have yielded the most pop ups of any staff in the majors, with a pop-up rate over two STD above the NL average. Their overall- and grounder-velocity allowed rank as the game’s best as well, again over two full STD better than the MLB average. Kershaw got plenty of help from both Kenta Maeda and Scott Kazmir in producing this result. Hitters “should have” batted .311 AVG-.500 SLG on all BIP allowed (and .216 AVG-.236 SLG on grounders), for an overall projected ERA of 4.76 on all BIP, best in the majors, fractionally ahead of the Nationals and Cubs. On BIP alone, the Dodgers’ projected winning percentage is .557, easily the best in the West.

Next, we add K and BB back into the mix, which works out fantastically for the Dodgers, who possess materially above-average K and BB rates on both sides of the ball. This was particularly the case on the mound, where Kershaw helped drive an NL best K rate in the first half. The club’s projected offensive “ERA” of 4.30 including K and BB is still third in the West, but is now comfortably above league average, while the projected pitching ERA drops to an MLB-best 3.28.

Unfortunately for the Dodgers, net team defense is not their friend utilizing this method. Their team defensive multiplier of 1.064 ranks last in the division, and is second worst in the NL, puffing their ERA up to 3.49, best in the division, but now well behind the Cubs. The situation is most acute on ground balls, on which they posted an NL-worst 1.158 multiplier. What’s up with that? Well, the Dodgers allowed 173 fewer grounders than they hit through the break, but allowed only one fewer ground-ball double (15 allowed, 16 hit). This suggests weakness on the corners, with methods such as UZR suggesting Adrian Gonzalez as the primary culprit.

Overall, the Dodgers projected winning percentage of .604 translates to a 55-36 record, best in the West and four games better than their actual mark.

SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS
The Giants are an interesting ball club, one whose strengths aren’t exactly of the “in your face” variety. On BIP alone, the Giants have the weakest offense in the West. In all of MLB, only the Reds have a lower average exit velocity. Their projected production on all BIP types is lower than league average; on all BIP they “should have” hit .321 AVG-.512 SLG, compared to the NL average of .328 AVG-.532 SLG, and posted a team offensive “ERA” of 5.05 on BIP alone. It could have been a lot worse, if not for the club’s MLB-best 22.6% liner rate at the break.

Their staff’s contact-management skills fall short of the Dodgers’, but were still better than NL average at the break. This was largely due to the prevention of line drives; only two NL clubs had lower liner rates allowed than the Giants. They did allow fairly loud fly-ball contact, yielding a projected .333 AVG-.902 SLG in the air, but the blow was cushioned a bit by their home park, which is unfriendly to fly balls. On BIP alone, the club’s projected ERA of 5.10 ranks second in the West, and a strong fourth behind the “big three” of the Dodgers, Cubs and Nats.

Like the Dodgers, the Giants receive a huge boost once K and BB are added back into the mix. The Giants are the best in the NL at avoiding strikeouts offensively, and avoiding walks defensively. Their offensive K rate is particularly notable: at 17.1%, it was over two STD lower than the NL average at the break. With K and BB added in, voila, the Giants become the best offensive club in the division, with a projected offensive “ERA” of 4.48, with their projected pitching ERA still fourth in the NL at 3.90. Their projected winning percentage is now .570 before net team defense is considered.

The Giants fare well in net defense, but not as well as they do in UZR. Their overall defensive multiplier of .987 ranks third in the division. Their grounder defense is stellar, at an NL-best .786, largely thanks to Brandon Crawford. The club hit and allowed an almost exact number of grounders, but hit 34 more grounder singles than they allowed; that’s remarkable. Their fly-ball (1.068) and liner (1.083) multipliers paint their outfield defense as well below average.

Taking all into account, the Giants projected winning percentage of .576 translates to a 52-38 mark at the break, five games worse than their actual record. They still comfortably project as a playoff-caliber club.

COLORADO ROCKIES
I come not to bury the Rockies, but to praise them. At least somewhat. Their losing formula in recent years has been all too predictable: run out a bad offense that appears good due to park effects and wonder why it didn’t translate into more wins. This year, their offense has actually been good, even after adjustment for the rarefied air. Their fly balls (projected production of .351 AVG-.948 SLG, second best in NL) have been hit quite hard, thanks in part to the arrival of the now-injured Trevor Story, keying an offensive “ERA” of 5.74, best in the West and third in the NL, on BIP alone.

On the mound, there’s a little bit of good news. The club posted the second-highest grounder rate in the NL at the break, though a high liner-rate allowed and generally mediocre contact-authority allowed across all BIP types conspired to produce a projected ERA of 5.63 on BIP alone, barely nosing out the Diamondbacks for the division basement, and ranking fourth worst in the NL. On BIP alone, the Rockies were a slightly above average club, at .509.

Adding back K and BB is not a positive thing for the Rockies, thanks to their pitching staff’s low K rate. It’s a challenge to whiff hitters at altitude, but even more of a challenge when the guy in the Rockie jersey is on the mound, apparently. Jon Gray, however, is pretty darned good, and should only get better, perhaps nudging his club into the average range before long. Adjusted for K and BB, the club’s projected ERA is a division-worst 4.56, and their projected winning percentage drops to .486.

The club’s team defensive multiplier at the break was a division-best .979. They fared best in the outfield with fly-ball and liner multipliers of .980 and .958, respectively. Yes, Nolan Arenado is great, but their pitching staff deserves a share of the infield’s credit, allowing 117 more grounders than the club hit, including 17 more at 55 mph and under.

With everything baked in, the Rockies were a .497 true-talent club at the break, four games better than their actual record. They’ve made up those games since.

ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS
The D-backs’ run-prevention numbers almost match the Rockies’ across the board, though the former club grades out lesser offensively using this method. That might surprise you a little bit. On BIP alone, the Arizona offense is fine: their fly balls (projected production of .339 AVG-.952 SLG) and liners (.665 AVG-.891 SLG) are well better than NL average, though an NL-low team fly-ball rate of 27.1% is a mitigating factor. The club’s 5.56 projected offensive “ERA” on BIP alone trails only the Rockies in the West, and ranks a respectable sixth in the NL.

The D-backs’ staff allows damage even a bit more authoritative than their offense creates. They get smoked on all BIP types, but get hurt in particular on the least desirable one, fly balls. They allowed projected production of .359 AVG-.982 SLG in the air at the break, by far worst in the NL. Robbie Ray says hi. The staff did limit the damage somewhat by posting the third-highest grounder rate in the NL. On BIP alone, the club’s ERA of 5.64 is worst in the West, and third worst in the NL, with the club’s projected winning percentage clocking in just below .500 (.493).

K and BB, unfortunately, are not kind to this club. They rank between one-half and one STD worse than average in all four measures. This chips away at their projection on both sides of the ball, dropping them into the average range with a 4.05 projected offensive “ERA”, and keeping them well below average with a projected 4.54 ERA on the mound, both ranking next to last in the division. Their projected winning percentage drops significantly to .442; yup, they lost .051 just by adding back the walks and whiffs.

The club’s net team defense somewhat surprisingly (at least based on the club’s poor UZR scores) grades out as a bit above average at .982, second in the division. Their grounder defense fares best, having recorded a .940 multiplier. You’d like some supporting evidence? Well, on grounders between 85-89 mph, Arizona hitters went 24-for-92 (.261), while opponents went 6-for-71 (.085). Point, Arizona.

Taking all into consideration, the D-backs’ projected winning percentage of .451 translates to a 40-50 record at the break, two games better than their actual mark.

SAN DIEGO PADRES
Matt Kemp is no longer a Padre, but his fingerprints are all over their mid-season BIP profile. When only looking at balls put into play, the Padre offense was nearly average, with an offensive “ERA” of 5.28. Their overall average BIP velocity ranked near the bottom of the NL, but they did hit the ball at a near exactly league-average clip in the air (projected production of .327 AVG-.877 SLG), cushioning the blow.

On the mound, the staff allowed loud contact both in the air (projected production of .341 AVG-.935 SLG) and on a line (.661 AVG-.884 SLG); both ranked second-worst in the NL. Only a reasonably solid BIP frequency mix kept the club’s projected ERA on BIP alone from ranking worse than third in the division and eighth in the NL.

With Matt Kemp on the payroll in the first half, you can imagine what adding back the K and BB might do to the Padre offensive projection. The club ranked well below average in offensive K and BB rate and in pitching BB rate (not Kemp’s fault), dropping their projected offensive “ERA” to 3.74, by far the worst in the West and their projected winning percentage to .426.

Kemp has his mitts all over the Padres’ 1.024 net defensive multiplier as well. Though their grounder defense (1.104 multiplier — thanks, Alexei Ramirez) might be an even bigger issue, the club managed to allow nine more (11 vs. 2) fly-ball triples than they hit through the break; yes, nine of those 11 triples were hit to right field. Only Travis Jankowski’s strong work of late kept the Padres’ overall fly-ball/line-drive defensive numbers respectable.

Overall, the club’s projected winning percentage of .414 translates to a 37-52 record, tied for third worst in the NL, and a single game shy of their actual mark.