The Dodgers Have Played With the Friendliest Strike Zone
There’s a certain asymmetry allowed in the game. Lineups can be arranged in whatever order. Defenses can be shifted however you want. The biggest and most obvious example is how every single home ballpark is unique. Distances are the same from mound to plate, and from base to base, but outfields and fences are completely different, wherever you look. It’s counted among baseball’s various charms, and I can’t recall anyone ever complaining. Every park is a different park, and it’s something we’re pleased to accept.
Yet, in theory, there’s one core component of the game that’s held constant for everybody. In theory, every player and every team is to work with identical strike zones. It would be absurd for the rules to allow the zone to be flexible, beyond considering a hitter’s particular stance. The zone is something fundamental, something necessarily equivalent, and there’s no good reason why any team should stand to benefit. In theory.
In reality, we know better! In reality, we know certain teams get better zones than others. Some of it comes down to randomness. Noise alone could explain certain fluctuations. Yet some of it is also by design. You’re the last people to whom I need to explain the concept of pitch-framing. This isn’t all about framing, but that’s a big part. Anyway, they’ve played almost three months of 2017 regular-season baseball. To this point, the Dodgers have received the friendliest strike zone, by far.
This is a post I probably write once or twice a year. Once somewhere around the middle, and then probably once again around the end. And it’s all based around some very simple math. Using the FanGraphs stats, you can find a team’s actual strike total, and you can also use the information to calculate an approximate expected strikes total. All that’s left is to compare the two. Generally, you see this done for pitchers. You can also do it for hitters, because why *couldn’t* you also do it for hitters, and in this post I’ll show you everything, including the numbers combined.
Before advancing to the data, let me remind you that this is simplistic. I like this analysis because it’s easy to perform, and it’s not perfect, because it’s not granular. The best form of this analysis would look at every single pitch individually. So, everything in here is an estimate, and some numbers are presumably off, but I feel good that there would be a strong relationship between these numbers and the hypothetical superior numbers. So then! Let’s begin with a bar graph. Here’s every team in baseball, along with their extra strikes above or below average. Positive numbers are good for the teams. Negative numbers are not.
Based on my math, the Dodgers have benefited from 237 calls, compared to the average. Their pitchers are at 188 more strikes than expected, and their hitters are at 48 fewer strikes than expected. All I’ve done is add the two up. The team in second is all the way down at 135, meaning the Dodgers are in first by more than 100. In fact, the Dodgers’ lead is exactly the same as the third-place Cubs’ *total.* The Dodgers are ahead of the Indians by 102. The Cubs are ahead of the league average by 102. This is mostly a credit to Yasmani Grandal, but some of the credit also goes to the Dodgers’ pitching staff. Not to mention, the hitters have helped out a little bit.
If you look at the other end, the Phillies are in last, because they might as well be in last place in everything. Among teams in or vaguely around contention, the Rockies, Royals, and Tigers have fared poorly. The Tigers have a recent history of faring poorly in this statistic. But, enough of looking at things overall. Here’s a plot of the hitting and pitching breakdown:
Because it’s unlabeled, it’s not very helpful. And so I’ll embed this table, that I think is supposed to be sortable. All positive numbers are good, and all negative numbers are bad.
| Team | Pitching | Hitting | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dodgers | 188 | 48 | 237 |
| Indians | 62 | 74 | 135 |
| Cubs | 26 | 76 | 102 |
| Orioles | 138 | -48 | 90 |
| Twins | -17 | 95 | 78 |
| Blue Jays | 74 | -7 | 67 |
| Diamondbacks | 95 | -52 | 43 |
| Red Sox | 50 | -13 | 37 |
| Nationals | -81 | 115 | 35 |
| Rays | -18 | 41 | 23 |
| Astros | 82 | -61 | 21 |
| Padres | 53 | -33 | 20 |
| Cardinals | 3 | 14 | 17 |
| Mets | 47 | -31 | 16 |
| Angels | 71 | -56 | 15 |
| Rangers | -44 | 40 | -4 |
| Braves | 106 | -113 | -7 |
| Pirates | 26 | -35 | -9 |
| Athletics | 15 | -27 | -12 |
| White Sox | -17 | 3 | -14 |
| Yankees | 45 | -83 | -39 |
| Giants | -46 | 3 | -43 |
| Mariners | -112 | 66 | -46 |
| Brewers | 24 | -74 | -50 |
| Marlins | -75 | -22 | -97 |
| Rockies | -157 | 58 | -99 |
| Royals | -107 | -10 | -116 |
| Tigers | -185 | 62 | -123 |
| Reds | -128 | 4 | -124 |
| Phillies | -119 | -34 | -153 |
The staffs that have worked with the best zones: the Dodgers, Orioles, Braves, Diamondbacks, and Astros. None of those are too surprising, except for maybe the Orioles, but Caleb Joseph has been more defensively good than Welington Castillo has been defensively bad. For the Diamondbacks, getting better in this department was an offseason priority, so it makes sense they are where they are. One might’ve reasonably expected the Twins to look better, but it’s not so easy to work with that pitching staff. It could make any catcher look worse.
Flipping things around, the Tigers have pitched with the cruelest zone. But then the Rockies are second from the bottom, which isn’t what was expected, but Tony Wolters hasn’t been the framer it looked like he was going to be. The Reds, Phillies, and Mariners round out the bottom five, and it’s interesting to see the Mariners there, too, given Mike Zunino’s history as a quality receiver. I’m not here to examine anything in depth. I’m just passing numbers along.
Now, it’s worth noticing that Nationals and Twins *hitters* have fared well, in terms of getting the benefit of the doubt. The same cannot be said of the Braves. The Braves have the largest positive difference between their pitching total and their hitting total. The Tigers have the biggest negative difference. Intuitively, it makes sense that the hitting numbers are more subject to randomness. It hasn’t been conclusively proven that hitter zones are much of a skill. For an idea of significance here, I ran an analysis of the 2016 data, splitting the first and second halves. Between halves, the pitching numbers had an R2 of 0.37. Meanwhile, the hitting numbers had an R2 of 0.10. The hitting numbers are more random, and regress harder, and so if you had to choose one of the two areas to excel, you’d take the pitchers. You already knew that, I imagine, but I’m giving support to your assumption.
That makes these numbers look worse for teams like the Mariners, Rockies, Tigers, and Nationals. Moving forward, their negative pitching numbers are more likely to keep up than their positive hitting numbers. And then, this looks good for, say, the Braves, Orioles, and Diamondbacks, for the same but opposite reason. Their hitters have been penalized, but that shouldn’t happen so much anymore. And their pitchers will probably keep the benefit of the doubt.
It’s a part of the game today that the actual zone isn’t equal for every player and every team. Perhaps it’s not always going to be that way. An automated strike zone would reduce all this to pretty much nothing. We’re not there yet, for better or for worse.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.


Yay Grandall!
On the flip side, boo umpires.
Does the expected strike value account for pitches in the zone that were called balls?
Yes
does average lineup height affect good/bad strikes called?
This is all based on the Trackman strike zone, which adjusts for hitter dimensions.
Very surprised to see the Rockies near the bottom for pitchers. I thought Wolters was good at framing.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1899425
You can see there that a big part of the problem is Ryan Hanigan being unplayably bad, hes about half the negative runs for the Rockies in only 805 chances.
Wolters is slightly negative but is the best of the Rockies catchers in this category.
Per pitch, Hanigan is more than twice as far below average as Grandal is above it, which is truly awful. He shouldn’t be catching in MLB with that kind of performance.
And yet, Rockies pitchers are more than a full run (close to 1.5 runs) better with Hanigan catching (by cERA) than with Wolters. Go figure.
Here’s the thing, the Rockies (for example) 157 pitches “lost” amounts to barely more than 2 per game. The vast majority of those won’t make a bit of difference. This is an interesting exercise but in the end the whole field of “stealing strikes” is just academic.
“The vast majority won’t make a bit of difference”
Citation needed.
Tell me more about Grandal, Jeff. It makes me moist.
Bring on the robot umps. For those who like that there is a catcher skill involved, we could have the catcher dance a jig after marginal pitches and the crowd could applaud for it to judge quality. Then a distance in from the edge that the decibel meter reading is associated with could be decided upon based on a formula toping out at about an inch. This would also preserve home field advantage.
I guess you could replace any valid baseball skill with something silly, but then you no longer have baseball. Question prompted by the article’s beginning: are robo-zone enthusiasts also in favor of requiring uniform ballpark dimensions?
The difference there is both teams are dealing with the same ball park dimensions in any given game. What this article shows is that each team gets a different strike zone; that is unfair and could be eliminated.
this is not a difference – both teams are dealing with the same umpire too.
So what exactly is ‘unfair’ about this? If my team gets more strikes because we put a skilled framer behind the plate, that’s no less fair than your lefty-stacked team hitting more homers over the short right-field porch.
The point is, I don’t think framing is a, “valid baseball skill” any more than a jig.
Given the ability of statistics to demonstrate significant differences among catchers with regard to their pitch framing, on what grounds do you declare it not a skill? If you’re the GM and I’m a pitcher, I guess I don’t want to throw to your catchers then.
You notice from both the table and graph that many teams that do really well with pitchers fare very poorly with hitters and vice versa (hence the graph shows a lot of activity in the upper left and lower right, and not nearly as much in the other two quadrants).
To me this suggests that it’s heavily umpire dependent; that is, certain umpires are calling larger strike zones (which will benefit your pitchers but hurt your hitters within that game) and some calling smaller zones (which will of course have the opposite effects).
You would actually expect a slight positive correlation because a good catcher is stealing strikes from a variety of other offenses except his own, and a bad catcher giving them to other offenses. So if the Tigers have played half their games against division opponents, and their pitchers have lost more than 180 strikes, that is about 20 strikes given to rivals. Those are being double-counted by adding the columns.
Yes, and some teams are simply set up better for umps with big strike zones (wild-ish pitchers, aggressive hitters) while others do better with small zones (control pitchers, disciplined hitters). Dodgers are in the latter category so seems likely they’ve encountered a lot of small zones so far.
There’s a negative correlation between pitching and hitting extra strikes, r2 = .18. That’s a problem, isn’t it?
I would expect a small negative correlation, if there are slight biases in umpiring (eg. if an ump has a large zone one day, it’s going to be positive for pitching column and negative for the hitting column for those 2 teams that day).
It would be interesting to look at teams like the Giants that platoon at catcher to see how it breaks down by whom is behind the plate.
But you do have Posey most of the time and yet he is losing strikes not adding them. That goes against the talk that he is a top pitch framer.