What You Can Say About Matt Davidson
A week ago today, the author of the current post published his own contribution to FanGraphs’ positional power rankings — an examination, specifically, of designated hitters. In the context of the positional rankings, DH occupies a slightly uneasy place. For one, the position (or non-position, as it were) doesn’t actually exist in the National League, which means the pool of players is necessarily smaller. Also, attempting to understand the contributions of a DH in the context of wins presents some difficulties. On the one hand, owing to the absence of any defensive responsibilities, designated hitters are subject to a robust negative adjustment in the calculation of WAR. On the other hand, though, hitters who are deployed in the DH role tend to hit worse than when playing the field — what analysts typically characterize as a “DH penalty.”
While one, duly motivated, could dedicate some time and energy to improving upon the extant methodology for evaluating the position, it’s also true that good hitters, when utilized in a DH capacity, tend to be well acquitted by WAR, poor hitters less so — a point illustrated by the image below.

Here one finds the chart that accompanied the aforementioned power-rankings post. Teams further to the left are projected to produce more wins out of the DH spot in 2018; teams on the left, fewer of them. The Yankees and Red Sox, who employ Giancarlo Stanton and J.D. Martinez, respectively, are expected to fare well this season. The Mariners and Indians (Nelson Cruz, Edwin Encarnacion), too.
It’s the rightmost bar of this chart that probably deserves some attention, because it largely concerns Your 2018 WAR Leader.
The White Sox were forecast, just a week ago, to receive the fewest wins from the DH position of any American League club — and not just the fewest wins, but actually negative wins. Certain current events might serve to cast that projection in a curious light.
Let’s address that momentarily. First, consider the author’s commentary regarding the White Sox’ DH depth chart:
Some may consider the White Sox’ decision to utilize Matt Davidson as the club’s designated hitter to be misguided. “He is not good,” they might contend. “He is bad,” they might contend also, restating their first point with slightly different words.
In terms of matters like “run production,” these criticisms possess a whiff of legitimacy. While Davidson is surely better at hitting than almost the entire rest of the human population, he has typically fared badly relative to major-league ballplayers — which, unfortunately, is the one demographic against which he’s been asked to compete. In strictly baseball terms, the White Sox’ decision to utilize Matt Davidson as the club’s designated hitter might be misguided.
As an attempt to “problematize” language, however, the White Sox might have struck a rich vein here. For those who are unfamiliar, “problematizing” is something graduate students do when they’re not meditating bleakly on their career prospects. To problematize a concept or idea, one ponders a reality in which the opposite of that concept or idea is true. In the case of Davidson, for example, the White Sox appear to be asking what would happen if a designated hitter didn’t hit. A stirring thought! The 2018 season is likely to go some way towards producing the appropriate hard data.
This passage largely concerns White Sox designated hitter Matt Davidson, and it generally offers something less than a “glowing” assessment of that designated hitter’s capacity to aid his club.
What’s a bit awkward about that particular assessment is this:
And this:
And probably best not to neglect this, either:
Matt Davidson hit three home runs on Opening Day. He “created” five runs by himself. He’s been worth a half-win already. If the world were to end today — a not entirely impossible contingency, in light of human behavior — it would end with Matt Davidson as the last, best practitioner of an extinct pastime played by an extinct race.
Whether or not Davidson’s performance is important — or is important in a way that reveals something previously unknown about him as a ballplayer — it certainly seems important. The most recent data about a player ought to be weighted most heavily, but how heavily should this data be weighted. What can we say about Matt Davidson?
First, is this: Davidson’s power has never really been the problem — or, at least, it wasn’t the problem for him last year. Even in a season defined by unprecedented power numbers, Davidson was among the league’s more impressive power hitters. Among batters with 400 or more plate appearances, Davidson recorded an isolated-power figure (.232) in the 75th percentile. He finished 13th of 540 hitters in terms of “barrels” per batted-ball event — ahead of Nelson Cruz (21), for example, and Josh Donaldson (22) and Mike Trout (28). Power on contact wasn’t the problem.
The trouble for Davidson has been making contact in the first place. Among the same group of hitters with at least 400 plate appearances cited above, a sample that includes mroe than 200 players, Davidson recorded the fifth-worst contact rate (65.3%) and sixth-worst swinging-strike rate (16.3%) second-worst strikeout rate (37.2%). At the same time, he walked in fewer than 5% of his plate appearances.
In that sense, Davidson’s performance on Thursday was a success but probably not one from which it’s possible to extract much of meaning. Davidson didn’t swing and miss once against the Royals. He recorded a contact rate of 100%, a swinging-strike rate of 0%. That’s a positive for Davidson but not unprecedented. Last year, he did that on 11 occasions total, in eight of which he was used as a starter (as opposed to a pinch-hitter). That accounts for roughly 10% of the games in which Davidson appeared last year. That makes it somewhat rare but, again, not unprecedented.
On the other hand, the quality of Davidson’s contact on Thursday — already a strength of his skillset — actually was unprecedented. Consider, by way of illustration, the exit-velocity leaderboard of this very young season:
| Rank | Name | Exit Velo (mph) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Giancarlo Stanton | 117.4 |
| 2 | Matt Davidson | 115.1 |
| 3 | Matt Davidson | 114.0 |
| 4 | Matt Davidson | 113.9 |
| 5 | Javier Baez | 113.0 |
And now consider Matt Davidson’s previous best exit velocities, per Baseball Savant:
| Rank | Date | Exit Velo (mph) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | July 5, 2017 | 112.6 |
| 2 | September 14, 2017 | 112.3 |
| 3 | June 13, 2017 | 112.2 |
| 4 | June 16, 2017 | 111.7 |
| 5 | April 8, 2017 | 111.0 |
According to the data as it currently stands (it’s sometimes recalibrated after the fact), Davidson entered yesterday’s game having never recorded an exit velocity greater than 113 mph. Yesterday alone, he eclipsed the 113-mph threshold three times. That’s very probably not a bad development for Davidson.
Of course, peak velocity alone isn’t the most powerful of indicators. Yes, Giancarlo Stanton and Aaron Judge finished first and second, respectively, by that measure last year, but Mike Trout — who produced the fourth-best ISO among qualified hitters and is also the best player in the league — ranked only 29th. Cody Bellinger, who had the fifth-best ISO, was even lower, at 83rd. Achieving a combination of strong exit velocities and ideal launch angles is more amenable to consistent power. And there’s nothing about Thursday that allows one to conclude that Davidson is likely to fair better by those measures. But he had an excellent day and did exhibit heretofore unprecedented power on contact. If he’s able to sustain an acceptable sort of contact rate, he’s likely to make the preseason projections look foolish.
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
Of those Top-5 Exit Velos yesterday, 4 were HRs, but Javy Baez had a 113 mph lineout. BABIP luck!
*value of ideal launch angles!
It’s weird when people talk about launch angles like the batter is playing a game of angry birds and lining up his shot *juuuuust so*
Davidson is an interesting character. I wrote about him recently here: https://thefbr.blog/2018/03/20/is-matt-davidson-just-one-adjustment-away/
He is absolutely inept at hitting pitches, particularly fastballs, high in or high out of the strike zone. He sells out for the low to mid strike zone stuff with his uppercut swing.
Key for him is going to be learning to lay off fastballs high and out of the strike zone. I don’t think he is ever going to be come good at hitting high pitches, but he can at least learn to work some walks instead of going down swinging on the stuff out of the zone.
Tuffy Rhodes wonders what the fuss is all about.
Matt Davidson was worth $4.5 million yesterday!!
#justtakingdollarperwarfiguresoutofcontextthings
Davidson ran a 37.2% K rate and a 4.3% BB rate last season. That is bad.
This spring training, in 73 PAs, he ran a 26% K rate and 12.3% BB rate. That is not outstanding, but vastly better than last year. He always ran decent (9+%) walk rates in every sample size before last season.
Also worth mentioning is that his batted ball profile— quality of contact, pull%, and FB%— together look very fly-ball-revolutionish.
Probably fair to say he’s looking up besides just this one great game… not that this game hurts him in the least, of course.
Overall he just needs to learn how to identify balls and strikes against top level pitchers with deceptive stuff.
Not sure how many of those top level pitchers he faced in spring training, though.
IF (IF) he can pull off 26%/11% that’s Bellinger, and I think that works. Probably more likely he falls somewhere around 26-28%/6-7% for the season, and I think that could still work.
As you mentioned, his walk rates haven’t been as bad as last year, just hoping he can recover some of that.
He’s obviously not going to rack up 486 HR and 81 WAR.
I mean, he’s probably going to get a few days off. It’s a long season.
Never say never. With only a 1 game sample size, we don’t even know if 3 homers/game is his peak!
I’m surprised I haven’t seen anything written about his splits last year. On June 23rd Davidson was slashing .270/.312/.575 with 17HRs and an .888 OPS in 200ABs. After June 23rd he hit .173/.210/.336 in 214 ABs with 9 HRs and a horrendous .546 OPS.
That could be a horrible sign that pitchers adjusted to him and a bad omen for his future, but I keep seeing people post that he was just bad when in fact he was quite good and then abruptly horrible. Maybe there is a tangible reason for the change, but he has shown over a 200 AB sample in the MLB that he could be a Mark Trumbo type hitter, which has some value.
fwiw, he had a wrist injury that never got enough time off to heal around that time
The notion that he was the worst DH in baseball was ludicrous to begin with. He hit 26 homers in his first season. Plenty of good players take a while to clean things up.
Not to take anything away from his accomplishment, but those three pitches looked like absolute meatballs to my untrained eye.
Oh they totally were, especially the first two, but saying that a hitter only punishes mistake pitches is not at all an insult. Only the elite of the elite have the bat control and strength to send a perfectly executed pitch over the fence; what differentiates the other 99% of batters is what they’re able to do when a pitcher makes a mistake. Plenty of guys yesterday saw three pitches left over the plate, but only Davidson hit three homers. That’s noteworthy.
If we’re looking for sustainable breakouts, I think Giancarlo Stanton’s 663 wRC+ is probably a better bet.
Stanton’s 300 home run season is going to be the best thing ever.
Man, that leaderboard…look at all those White Sox with lousy wRC+ projections up there:
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2018&month=0&season1=2018&ind=0&team=&rost=&age=&filter=&players=
This is apparently what happens when you were projected to be bad but then score 14 runs on opening day.
Wow, the author of the DH positional projections must feel silly now. Who was that??
“If the world were to end today-a not entirely impossible contingency, in light of human behavior -it would end with Matt Davidson as the last, best practitioner of the extinct pastime played by an extinct race.
Well struck balls by Matt, well struck words by Carson.
By the way, this is still time for said contingency to occur. It’s early.
The lead in to the discussion of Matt Davidson’s sensational performance returns me to what has become my cross to bear, attacking the existing methodology used to evaluate the DH position. As it presently exists, the methodology for evaluating the DH position is erroneous. It is absurd to penalize a player for not playing the field when he is not allowed to play the field. It would be proper to penalize the DH if the team was forced to play with only eight defenders but that is equally absurd. The position is unique to one league. That league plays with a ten man opening lineup. I can accept valuing players who play premium defensive positions more highly than less difficult positions but the DH is impossible to value in any meaningful way. Let us compare apples only to apples, offensive WAR vs. offensive WAR. In another chat I compared Aaron Judge, last year’s top offensive WAR performer with J.D. Martinez’s projections for 2018. Judge had an offensive WAR of 7.2 and Martinez was projected to have a 2.8 WAR in 2018. Judge may be a better all-around player but he isn’t a better offensive player, at least not by that large a discrepancy as this. No numbers could come close to properly quantifying David Ortiz’s value to the Red Sox offense every year he played, even if he ran slower than I do. Maybe the best solution is that the position is split into two, a designated hitter who only hits, I will take J.D. Martinez, and a great defender who carries a sausage bat up to the plate, let me put Juan Lagares in the field. Sounds ridiculous but it makes as much sense as valuing a great, great hitter as a 2 WAR player.
“In another chat I compared Aaron Judge, last year’s top offensive WAR performer with J.D. Martinez’s projections for 2018. Judge had an offensive WAR of 7.2 and Martinez was projected to have a 2.8 WAR in 2018. Judge may be a better all-around player but he isn’t a better offensive player, at least not by that large a discrepancy as this.”
And in that chat (it’s the first link in Carson’s post, if anyone cares to click through), I replied:
“As for the comparison of Judge to Martinez, we’re comparing Judge’s actual production last year to the projection for Martinez. Judge had a .430 wOBA last year and Martinez is projected for a .384 wOBA. Also Judge had 678 PA and the above projection is for Martinez to have 525 as a DH. That seems like it should account for most of the 4.4 WAR difference last year–Martinez’s projected wOBA and PA are about what Marwin Gonzalez actually did last year–and the value Judge provided by keeping Matt Holliday out of the outfield might easily make up the rest?”
Gonzalez had a 28.5 Off and Judge had a 60.8 Off, so we’re talking 3.2 wins difference on offense alone.
In Martinez’s case, it’s not that he’s not allowed to play the field; he would be allowed to play the field, if there was a position he could play better than the current occupant. For instance, if he were an average defender at first, he could play there instead of Hanley Ramirez, who so far grades out as a -5 defender at first. So replacing Martinez with an identical hitter who could be a +0 defender at first would be a five run improvement, which means Martinez’s lack of position is worth about five runs less than the 1B adjustment… which coincidentally is exactly the DH adjustment.
(Also he’s projected at 3.4 WAR on the depth charts, because he’s expected to get some time in the outfield, so describing him as a “2 WAR player” is some serious rounding. He was worth 3.8 WAR last year and he only DHed five games!)
You are actually defending my point. I think it is reasonable to say that he is LESS valuable if he plays in the outfield, even if it helps his WAR. The Red Sox are clearly not as good when J.D. Martinez is playing the outfield. He isn’t very good and anybody who replaces him at DH is, by any measure, not as good a hitter. That his WAR should actually increase when he is doing something he does very poorly, and hurting the team in the process, is counter-intuitive to the Nth degree. What I am saying is that the DH is very, very difficult to quantify and that the present methods are not giving the position, or non-position as Carson says, its proper value.
A couple points here:
If Martinez isn’t very good when he plays the outfield, that will show up in his defensive stats. He had a UZR/150 of -15 in right field. Since RF has a -7.5 positional adjustment, that gives him less WAR than if he’d DHed and got the -17.5 positional adjustment. So… playing the outfield, which he is worse at than DHing, would hurt his WAR, as it should.
OTOH, there could be circumstances in which someone’s WAR would get hurt for DHing even though DHing made the team better. Say Martinez was only like a -2 outfielder, and Hanley had decided to devote himself to free-jazz trombone so the 1B was Moreland and his +6 glove… then Martinez would be rated -17.5 at DH and -9.5 in the outfield, even though playing him in the OF would hurt the team by pushing a superior fielder to DH. But on some teams, the DH’s inability to play the field hurts more than -17.5; like the 2017 Tigers, where if Victor Martinez had been able to play outfield J.D. Martinez wouldn’t have had to be out there racking up a -15 UZR in a position with a -7.5 adjustment.
The -17.5 DH adjustment is supposed to be an average of how much it hurts to have to play the next worst fielder in the field. Don’t know if it’s calculated correctly, but J.D. Martinez doesn’t tell us it isn’t.
FWIW I do think that maybe the DH positional penalty should be lowered to take account of the DH penalty, since the average player would hit worse as a DH. But that’s another story.
Tuffy Rhodes?
His power is huge but his k-bb% is about the worst in the league. 30%+ Ks are a red flag in any case but at least guys like chris davis or chris carter also walked like 12-13%. The case of carter showed that even with 40hr power and good walks the air gets thin with mid 30s ks but when the same comes with 5% even stanton like power can only do so much.
Carter is a mistake hitter that can get carved up by good pitchers and he can’t hit tough pitches but at least he usually forces the pitcher to make 3 good pitches to whiff him. Davidson can’t even do that.
He will hit his homers but to even become carter (not talking about high average) he needs to improve either contact or patience.
Right now Matt Davidson is first in WAR and Mike Trout is dead last. The beauty/insanity of small sample sizes!
I have always wondered, why do contact % + swinging strike % never add up to 100%? I would think that if he was 5th worst in contact % then he would also be 5th worst in swinging strike %. How are they different? I’m definitely missing something here
Per the glossary, contact % is contact made divided by swings, and swinging strike % is swinging strikes divided by total pitches. So in the latter case the denominator includes pitches taken (either for balls or called strikes), whereas in the former it does not.
thanks
Is this the most depressed opening day announcer in baseball history? Even when the Royals are ahead he seems to be lacking in the slightest zest for his own existence.
Does anybody know where Fangraphs gets these videos and how they post them in articles as such?