For the last three years, Anthony Rizzo has been one of the most consistent hitters in baseball. His wRC+ from 2014-2016: 155, 145, 145. His wOBA: .397, .384, .391. He consistently draws a walk in about 11% of his plate appearances and strikes out in less than 20% of his plate appearances. So far this year? It has been a much slower start, as he’s slashing .231/.371/.448. Though the OBP and SLG aren’t bad, the batting average is tougher to stomach. He’s been just above average with a wRC+ of 114, hardly the numbers the Cubs were expecting from their perennial All-Star. Still, there’s some explanation for all this. For comparison’s sake, we will only be looking at 2016 and 2017. Here’s some charts from Brooks Baseball:

There isn’t an obvious change in approach. He’s swinging at about the same amount of pitches and really is staying inside the zone. In 2017 it seems like he’s swinging more at the low and in pitches but otherwise, same approach. The stats from Baseball Info Solutions and PITCHf/x back this up. He’s in line with his career swing% by both metrics; the difference is in the contact he’s making. By Baseball Info, his O-Contact% is 71.1% up from 68.1%. PITCHf/x also has him at 71.1% up from 66.1%.

This makes me think the quality of the contact is the issue. Here are two videos showing at bats in 2017 and 2016. The focus here is what Rizzo is doing with outside pitches. First 2016, then 2017:

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/videos?video_id=730449083

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/videos?video_id=1383639883

In 2016, Rizzo lets that outside pitch get deep to poke it to left field. The 2017 version is early and rolls it over into a shift. Baseball Savant has limited video for 2017 but I’ve seen the same thing and the numbers back it up. Here are two charts showing his exit velocities, 2016 is on the bottom, 2017 is on the top.

It would be easy to say Rizzo needs to do a better job going the other way with the outside pitch, but that’s the main difference I’m seeing this year. Overall, Rizzo’s hard contact is down to 30.4% from last year’s 34.3%, and from his career rate. His pull rate is also the highest in his career, at 53%, vs. 43.9%. Rizzo has been pulling a decent amount of grounders, specifically at a rate of 68.1% with about 78.2% being characterized as soft or medium contact, higher than in 2016. Rizzo faces a shift quite a bit, so pulling grounders isn’t going to help him. He’s hitting line drives at the lowest rate since he was first called up, and down to 15% from his career 20% rate. Take a look at the spray charts below. The first chart is 2017 and the second is 2016. It’s the classic small sample vs. large sample but you can definitely see that Rizzo is not using all fields like he has in the past.

This what confounds me. Despite all this, he still is producing better than average, because his walk rate and strikeout rate are the best rates of his career. So just imagine if his BABIP currently wasn’t .212? I don’t want to say that’s going to raise for sure, but I believe it will get closer to his career rate of .285. This is probably a long-winded way of saying small sample size, so here’s one last thing. This has happened with Rizzo before. In 2016 he had a similar start in March through May, but turned it on for the rest of the year.

Still, this isn’t a simple “It’s been 50 games and he’s been unlucky” that would imply that he’s the same player doing the same things but getting different results. The concern I have is that Rizzo’s doing things differently this year. He’s not using all fields, and he’s hurting his performance by trying to pull pitches and generating weaker contact (his EV is down this year). Using all fields might lead to more line drives and would drive his batting average up to his career norms. Maybe he’s putting pressure on himself after last year’s championship? He’s had success before and I believe he can get back to where he was.

The Chicago Cubs have been immensely disappointing in 2017, not quite living up to the dynastic expectations that were forced upon them. Kyle Schwarber is struggling (if you haven’t heard that, I don’t know where you have been). Addison Russell is struggling. The pitching rotation is struggling. Star third baseman Kris Bryant, however, has managed to avoid being dragged down with the rest of the team.

In his MVP season last year, Bryant put up a .402 wOBA and a 149 wRC+, ranking 8th and 9th in the league, respectively. Through 50 games in 2017, he has posted a .402 wOBA and a 147 wRC+. The results are almost identical, but the two ways they have been achieved are not quite as similar.

40.3% of Bryant’s contact was considered hard in 2016, good for 13th in the league. But visit the Statcast exit velocity leaderboard for 2017, and you won’t be seeing Bryant anywhere near the top. Bryant’s Hard% is down all the way to 29.6% in 2017 and his average exit velocity of 86.21 mph this year is actually worse than the MLB Average 87.83 mph. The wOBAs for each season are the same, but the xwOBAs tell a much different story. Bryant was a bit lucky in 2016, as his xwOBA of .383 indicated a performance a little worse than his numbers. But it did not change the fact that Bryant still put up an MVP season, and it doesn’t look as worse if you consider Wrigley Field had a park factor of 90.2 in 2016. This year, Bryant’s .349 xwOBA pales in comparison to the .402 wOBA, especially with Wrigley’s 110.2 park factor this year. Bryant, unlike other Cubs, has managed to dodge the criticism this year with the help of a whole lot of luck.

The 2016 and 2017 launch angles are quite similar, so a change in swing path likely isn’t causing the weaker contact. And with the 2016 Bryant put up, one would hardly expect that he was quick to adjust his swing. The change is strange, but there may be an explanation.

Like with most power guys, Bryant was a heavy pull hitter in 2016, hitting 46.7% of his balls to left field. That number has taken a massive drop to 38.7% this season. Balls in play are likely to find more gaps if they are sprayed all over the field, but that still cannot come close to accounting for the difference in Bryant’s xwOBA and wOBA. Hand in hand with that, his contact rates have gone up. He is connecting on 65.3% of his swings on pitches outside the zone, up from 59.8% last year. His swinging strike rate is down from 13.0% to an impressive 9.7%. Perhaps Bryant, like Giancarlo Stanton also recently did, decided to give up some power for a more balanced plate approach.

The problem, though, is that Bryant hasn’t altered his strikeout rates. His K% is only down to 20.5% this year from 22.0% last year. Bryant is chasing less, though, lowering his O-Swing% from 30.8% to 28.6%. He is chasing less now, and even when he is chasing, he is making more contact. He’s also making a whole lot more contact in general. Those should add up to fewer strikeouts, but, oddly, they aren’t. Again, there may be an explanation. Bryant is still whiffing a whole lot with two strikes, as his swinging strike with two strikes with rate is still at 24.5%, compared to last year’s 26.8% mark. You can’t strike out without two strikes, so even if he is whiffing less with one or zero strikes, he’s not making more contact when there is an actual punch-out opportunity.

If you are going to refine your plate approach and lose some of the aggressive hacks, you need to strike out less, as Stanton did. Guys like (younger) Stanton have to offset lots of misses by doing something with the ball on the times they don’t miss.

But there is one thing that has really confused me. Why is a former MVP giving up the approach that got him the award? Everyone can and should make adjustments to get better, even Mike Trout, but it is odd to see Bryant stray this far from what he did last year.

There is some good news, though. Bryant is posting a 15.5% walk rate, ranking 11th in the league. His Zone% has actually slightly increased from this year to last, so perhaps Bryant’s improved eye is forcing pitchers to attack him in the zone. Or maybe they are catching on to his weak contact.

Overall, this has been a weird season for Bryant and the Cubs. The Cubs are loudly scuffling, while Bryant is quietly putting together a mysterious season. He won the MVP in 2016, but then seemingly decided to make big adjustments to his plate approach. His new approach isn’t working, but his production isn’t falling. I honestly don’t know what to make of this right now, and maybe no conclusions need to be drawn at this time. But one thing that can be taken away is that we should start monitoring Bryant a little more closely.

“Funny things happen in baseball” was what one former major-league GM had to say regarding the Yankees’ unexpected success thus far. 2017 was supposed to be a rebuilding year for this club, but after winning 30 games before the end of May, the Bronx Bombers have established themselves as one of the best teams in baseball. As Henry Druschel writes, the Yankees are not only good, but fun!

Baseball is a team game, so it’s impossible to give credit to one or even a few players. But in a season that was supposed to be focused on the development of prospects — Judge, Bird, and Sanchez — it has become impossible to ignore the surprising production from some of the established veterans on the team. Starlin Castro is having the best season of his career. Jacoby Ellsbury is having more success in a Yankee uniform than ever before. And Matt Holliday is on pace to produce the highest power numbers of his career since he played 81 games a year at hitter-friendly Coors Field.

All of these players deserve credit for the early success of this team. But one player who has not received enough praise, especially after reinventing himself, is Brett Gardner.

For years, Gardner was nothing more than a slap hitter. He would get on base at a decent clip, where he was a real threat, stealing almost 100 bases between 2010 and 2011. He was never, by any stretch of the imagination, a power hitter — in the first five years of his career, his ISO never topped .110. And that was okay. By many accounts, he was a good player. Not great, but good enough to average almost 5 WAR from 2010-2014.

Flash-forward to 2017 and Brett Gardner is a different hitter. Aaron Judge, the heir-apparent to Jeter’s throne in New York, commented on the 33 year-old leadoff hitter’s changed approach: “He’s a little ball of muscle. I’m just glad he’s finally using it now.” He sure is. There are clear trends in Gardner’s “medium” and “hard” contact numbers.

Gardner is hitting with hard speed at a rate of 34.8%, markedly higher than his career average of 23.6%. His medium-speed percentage is 10 points lower than it has been at almost any point in the last three years. And his soft-speed percentage is also below his career average. His approach has changed.

Notably, Gardner is not clenching his teeth and swinging for the fences a la Chris Davis or Chris Carter. His walk rate and strikeout rate are both in line with his career averages. He’s not chasing balls out of the zone, either.

Almost a third of the way through the season, Gardner is more disciplined now than in the past. His O-Swing% is in the top 10 with players like Joey Votto (who has stopped striking out) and Matt Carpenter, who is tied for first in non-intentional walks drawn.

With this new approach, Gardner is hitting for more power than ever before.

As you can see, his average has remained relatively constant. In other words, his slugging percentage didn’t skyrocket because he started to hit a bunch of singles. Gardner really is driving the ball, leading to more extra-base hits. As a result, his isolated power numbers have risen dramatically. Isolated power (ISO) shows how often a player hits for extra bases.

For just the second time in his career, Gardner’s ISO has risen above the league average. And in 2017, his numbers put him in the same ballpark as Kris Bryant and Giancarlo Stanton.

During a period where the Yankees have gone from rebuilding to contending, Brett Gardner has evolved from a slap hitter into someone who drives the ball remarkably well. Aaron Judge is having a tremendous season, and with Trout’s injury he may well be the AL MVP.

But Gardner’s transformation shouldn’t go unnoticed. His ISO won’t stay at .259 all year. In fact, with only 200 plate appearances, this number doesn’t have much predictive value on its own. It’s clear, however, that Gardner has changed his approach. He is no longer the speedy, slap-hitting leadoff guy expected to steal 30 bases. Although Girardi still pencils him in at the top of the lineup, Gardner has reinvented himself to hit for power.

Not much has gone right for the San Francisco Giants in 2017. Everyone knows about the dirt bike accident and the consistent inconsistency that they call a bullpen. However, the 2017 struggles of Matt Moore have largely flown unnoticed, probably because of all the other issues facing the team. To say that Matt Moore has underperformed the Giants’ expectations since they traded Matt Duffy for him last summer feels like an understatement. To this point in the year Moore has amassed an inflated 5.28 ERA with a 1.53 WHIP. He is on one of the statistically worst offenses in the league and is currently getting out-pitched by both Matt Cain and Ty Blach.

Next comes the point of the story where FanGraphs authors write about how the underlying numbers show that Matt Moore is actually closer to Carlos Carrasco than Adam Conley. They entertain you with tales of a .400+ BABIP and a <60% strand rate. They serenade you with increased velocity and changes in spin rate.

Except I can’t do any of that. Moore has pretty much been just as bad as his stats show. He has the highest qualified walk rate and the lowest qualified strikeout rate of his career. His hard-hit rate sits at 40.6%, good for seventh-worst in the league (out of 91 qualified starters). His team currently sits 11 games out of the division lead, doesn’t provide sufficient run support, and could be in complete sell mode by the end of June.

This raises the question, why would anyone want to spend hours researching and writing about such an underwhelming pitcher? Giants fans certainly don’t enjoy the self-inflicted pain that Moore causes each time he pitches. However, there is something interesting when examining the Giants schedule from the start of the season through the end of May.

This is about what you would expect for the Giants. Very heavy against the NL West to start the year, while beginning to adventure outside of the division as they work their way through May. Look at what happens when highlighting the series that Moore has pitched or is scheduled to pitch in (green) vs. the ones that he hasn’t (red).

At first glance, it seems like Moore has pitched against better offenses or hitter-friendly ballparks (ARI, COL, LAD, CHC, WAS) while missing entire series against weaker offenses in pitcher-friendly stadiums (SD, KC). To see if this claim is actually supported, I used wOBA as a proxy for opponent offensive firepower to weigh each of the opponents.

The average wOBA for teams that Moore has faced is .331 while the average wOBA for the teams he has missed is .309. A difference in wOBA of .022 is the exact difference between the wOBA of the 2017 Cubs and 2017 Pirates. The team with the wOBA closest to .331 so far in 2017 is the Dodgers, meaning that on average Moore has faced the Dodgers caliber of offense in each start throughout the season. The team with the wOBA closest to .309 is a mix between the White Sox and the Phillies, two weaker offenses. This doesn’t even take into account that Moore isn’t allowed to face the team with the lowest wOBA due to pitching for them. To obtain some historical context, I compared Moore’s .331 average opponent wOBA against all 2016 starters (min. 10 starts).

Out of all starters with 10 starts in 2016 (185 total pitchers), Moore’s current average opponent wOBA would rank as the highest. Even the .005 difference in wOBA between 2017 Moore and 2016 Severino is a significant margin (the exact difference between the 2017 Rockies and 2017 Rays). Let’s look at how the .309 wOBA of the matchups Moore has missed would rank out of the 2016 starters.

Weighing all of the starts that Moore has missed, he would have been tied for the easiest average opponent wOBA of 2016. The difference between the offensive caliber of the teams that Moore has and hasn’t faced on the Giants schedule is not only steep; it’s the difference between the toughest and easiest pitcher schedules of 2016.

To be clear, none of this is suggesting that Matt Moore is or will be a good pitcher this season. In fact, the signs of a good pitcher is one who can toe the rubber against even the toughest teams. However, Moore’s schedule has not provided any favors. Before the Giants and their fans pass judgement on Moore, they should take a close look at who Moore has (and hasn’t) faced. Moore’s next assignment? The Washington Nationals on Monday. (Ed. note: that was Memorial Day)

As the 2017 MLB Draft quickly approaches, I thought it may be fun to analyze some of the best college hitters available.  On May 23, Eric Longenhagen released the 2017 Sortable Draft Board on FanGraphs.  This article looks at the statistics of each college hitter on the list.  In this article, I tried to not lean on literature and scouting reports of the players.  Rather, I decided to calculate some statistics to use as guides in building an outsider’s perspective of their offensive profiles.  This body of work does not include much information about attributes or skills not published on a school’s statistics page on their website.

Nobody real cares about the counting statistics of college players.  So, for my table of numbers to fit on a page, I left them out.  The statistics I focused on are a hitter’s slash line (AVG, OBP, and SLG), OPS, BABIP, ISO, RC, K% and BB%.  These are relatively easy to calculate and provide some sort of worth when evaluating prospects.  AVG, OBP, and SLG are simple and widely understood.  OPS provides a good gauge of a hitter’s overall offensive ability.  BABIP is an important indicator of a hitter’s talent at the plate, but can be inflated or deflated depending on the talent level of the different defenses faced by the hitter.  ISO is a good indicator of how well each hitter demonstrated their power and XBH ability.  Runs Created (RC) is a crude but effective measurement of total, individual offensive output.  K% and BB% give us some idea of how well the batter demonstrated their understanding of the strike zone and discipline at the plate.  For more information on each statistic, as well as how to apply it, I suggest checking out the Glossary tab.

Below is the table of numbers I made.  Even further below is where you will find a quick summation of each hitter discussed.

Jeren Kendall (#9 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

Vanderbilt                   OF                   (B- L/ T- R)

Jeren Kendall is considered by many to be the best college hitter, outside of Louisville two-way player Brendan McKay.  Kendall showed some impressive pop out of center field this past year, knocking 15 balls over the fence in 235 at bats.  However, he also managed to record 50 strikeouts.  Kendall did manage to produce an excellent walk rate and ISO, but his total output was “middle of the pack” as far as the guys on this list go.  He should go off the board within the first 20 picks this upcoming draft.

Adam Haseley (#15 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

Virginia                       OF                   (L/L)

Hitting from the left side of the plate, Virginia outfielder Adam Haseley managed to put up the best statistical profile of any hitter on this list.  He comes into June’s draft with an impressive OPS (1.186) and an even more entertaining strikeout rate — a board-best 7.7% (only 19 punch outs in 205 ABs).  While Haseley’s power numbers may not translate at the next level, his affinity for driving the ball into deeper parts of the ballpark should make for a high doubles count at the next level.

Keston Hiura (#17 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

UC Irvine                     2B                    (R/R)

While Keston Hiura’s .486 BABIP may be a good indicator as to why his batting average is north of .400, it is also a good indicator of just how good he is with a bat in his hand.  He did not just hit singles — his 21 doubles come in second on the list.  He displayed an excellent walk rate, which contributed to the highest on base percentage on the shortlist.  While some teams may elect to take a prep shortstop over a college second baseman, Hiura still plays a premium position with solid presence at the plate and would fit in nicely in any class as a second to third-round pick.

Pavin Smith (#18 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

Virginia                       1B                    (L/L)

The second UVA Cavalier on our list slashed an impressive .348/.433/.581 this past season, and posted an impressive 3.2% strikeout rate.  While his numbers do not match those of his teammate Adam Haseley, Pavin Smith could very well be the first college first baseman off the board, assuming you do not count Brendan McKay as a first baseman.  His demonstrated knowledge of the strike zone, coupled with a list-best walk rate, are both very good indicators of a first baseman with a high ceiling.

Logan Warmoth (#20 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

North Carolina            SS                    (R/R)

Tar Heel shortstop Logan Warmoth, when compared to the rest of this list, does not really stand out.  However, he should be taken early, as he still has the best odds of being the first college shortstop off the board.  He hit well in the ACC this past season, compiling 18 doubles, 4 triples, and 9 home runs.  Though his demonstrated power will likely not follow him up the minors, any team would love to have a strong bat such as his at the most premium of all premium positions.

Jake Burger (#22 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

Missouri State            3B                    (R/R)

Our only hot corner prospect on the list is a power threat through and through, according to his numbers.  While his average will continually drop as he climbs the minors, Burger’s 20 homers showcased his raw power.  Although there may be some questions about his tendency to punch out, plus power paired with an excellent walk rate at a corner position are a recipe for success.  Everybody loves a little yak sauce on their Burger every now and then.

Evan White (#29 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

Kentucky                      1B                    (R/L)

A first baseman who hits from the right side is very common.  A First Baseman who hits from the right side but throws left is very uncommon.  A first baseman who hits from the right side but throws left with plus speed is downright unique.   Evan White legged out a list leading 23 doubles this past year, and posted all-around great offensive numbers.  He will be a very interesting draft choice, and his excellent statistics project a demonstrate a solid offensive background.

Brian Miller (#49 on FanGraphs Sortable Draft Board)

North Carolina            OF                   (L/R)

Rounding out our list is North Carolina outfielder Brian Miller.  Miller slashed a very impressive .336/.412/.504 line this past year, and should be a good mid-grade prospect in the upcoming draft.  His statistics do not lean to one type of offensive profile over another, but his high BABIP and excellent walk rate generate some reasons to believe his bat will continue to develop at the next level.

Again, this article is meant to simply provide a statistical overview of a few college prospects in the upcoming draft.  It should be looked at as a tool for anybody who cares enough to concern themselves with college statistics.

Theodore Hooper is an undergraduate student at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.  He can be found on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/theodore-hooper/ or on Twitter at @_superhooper_

To express the extent of a player’s confidence is difficult, and using numbers to back up this assertion is even harder. When a player lacks confidence, it can be seen through a slew of on-field mannerisms that don’t always present themselves inside statistics. Instead, the numbers tell us the story of a pitcher, once of dominant form, who is struggling to get outs and display any sort of consistent performance. The statistics paint this picture about Matt Harvey. They tell us a tale of dominance, hindered and erased by injury and ineffectiveness. Although this story is told, it seems to be far from the truth. I believe in an alternate story. A story that displays a human being struggling with the confidence to throw his pitches and retire hitters. A lack of confidence stemming from a large set of off-field hindrances and a set of recent on-field struggles. A problem that will be moved past and put behind in the months to come, making it only a distant memory to both Matt and Met fans.

If we rewind back to September of 2015, we can see that Harvey is no stranger to hardships or headlines. After Tommy John surgery following his stellar 2013 campaign, he seemed back to form throughout 2015, culminating in an impeccable playoff start against the Cubs and a World Series game 1 nod. Throughout the season, questions about Harvey’s innings limit hovered around the Mets clubhouse, reaching its climax in early September. After a start against the Philadelphia Phillies where Harvey exited early due to dehydration, agent Scott Boras spoke about the doctor’s indication that Matt should not exceed 180 innings pitched that season. With Matt already at 166 1/3 innings, it seemed like the Mets organization was directly ignoring these suggestions.

This back and forth between the front office and Boras propelled Matt into the spotlight preceding his next start against Washington, who had become their rival in the midst of a pennant race. He pitched poorly, to the tune of 7 R (4 ER) in only 5 1/3 innings. This tough outing doesn’t hold a torch to his current struggles, but the difference in approach between this start and his recent starts form an interesting comparison.

Throughout this start in particular, and the entirety of the 2015 season, Matt Harvey was unafraid to throw his fastball to any hitter. He challenged hitters like Bryce Harper, in the midst of an MVP season, with fastball after fastball. In Harvey’s most recent start, he wouldn’t even challenge Manuel Margot with the same. Of his 74 pitches in that 2015 start, he threw 51 fastballs 95 and above, constantly pounding the zone. In his most recent start, Harvey nibbled around corners, he never challenged hitters, and he relied on his breaking ball (usually out of the zone) even when behind in the count. This tendency showed a lack of confidence to throw his fastball and challenge hitters, something that Harvey needs desperately to be successful. Overall, the dichotomy in approach between 2015 and 2017 for Matt is striking. Here are some of the numbers based on his position in the count:

2015, 2017
AHEAD
CU, CH: 22.3%, 19.7%
SL: 15.5%, 23.4%
FA, FT: 62.2%, 56.9%
BEHIND
CU, CH: 19.0%, 25.3%
SL: 16.5%, 21.7%
FA, FT: 64.6%, 53.0%
TOTALS
AHEAD% 32.6%, 20.8%
BEHIND% 20.8%, 25.9%

In 2015, when ahead in the count, Matt threw 62.2% fastballs. When behind, he threw even more, to the tune of 64.6% of the time. Because of his ability to pound the zone with his fastball, he spent 32.6% of his time ahead in the count while only 20.7% behind. This allowed him to control the pace of the at-bat and the expectations of the hitter. When he wanted to break off a curveball or a slider it became much more effective in relationship to his established fastball.

So far in 2017, he’s been unable to get ahead in the count or develop any rhythm with the pitch. His inability to challenge hitters has left him nibbling around the plate, leaving him ahead in the count only 20.7% of the time. This problem grows when behind in the count, as Harvey continues to throw off-speed pitches 47% of the time. His inability to command these pitches leads to even worse counts, and compounds the problem. Throughout his most recent start again San Diego, Harvey continued to nibble around the corners of the zone, seemingly afraid to challenge hitters with his fastball or throw off-speed pitches consistently in the zone.

This tendency, pointed out by Ron Darling during the SNY Broadcast, can be evidenced by his complete change in pitch usage as shown above. Although diminishing fastball usage is occurring league round, Harvey has to use his fastball more consistently to be more effective this season. By establishing his fastball early, he can play off of it, creating more effective offspeed pitches as well as more powerful fastballs. To be a Cy Young caliber pitcher, you have to trust your stuff and believe in your ability to dominate. As of now, Matt doesn’t believe in either.

Up until Wednesday’s game, the Cardinals offense had been struggling, or as Bernie Miklasz described it: “snoring.” As a result, the Cardinals went 1-5 over six games despite a rotation ERA of 1.28. In the same article, Bernie highlights some of the reasons this team has a “mediocre” record with the best starting pitching in baseball (3.06 ERA). Namely, a low on-base percentage from the leadoff hitter. How low you might ask? It’s at .302, which is good for 26th in the league.

Mike Matheny has used only three different players in the top spot of the order: Dexter Fowler (35 games), Kolten Wong (7 games), and Greg Garcia (1 game). Without question, when Dexter Fowler is playing well, he should lead off. After all, that’s what he was signed to do (in one of the biggest FA deals of the offseason). Not only did he play a key role in leading a Cubs team that combined for well over 200 wins in 2015 and 2016, but he also had an OBP of .393 last year — second only to Mike Trout (who might end up being better than Mickey Mantle). This year, Fowler’s OBP has dropped to .305 and his wRC+ has fallen from 129 in 2016 to 89 (For those unfamiliar with wRC+, 100 is average).

I’m not the only one thinking it might be time for a change; Matheny has hinted at it too. But he’s not ready to make a decision just yet. Here’s why he should be.

Kolten Wong is quietly putting together a solid campaign. In one of the early surprises of the season, with a slash line of .281/.376/.422, Kolten has provided more value than Fowler thus far. If we look at a recent, albeit smaller sample size, the results are even more shocking.

These results paint a clear picture: Wong has been the better player for the entire month of May. Although not an enormous difference, Wong’s 15 wRC+ advantage over Fowler is significant. As the splits become smaller, the difference only increases. This illuminates Kolten’s recent success and Dexter’s struggles.

While some may say Fowler is a natural leadoff hitter and Kolten is not, these two players have very similar plate-discipline profiles for 2017. Both players swing at about 26% of pitches out of the strike zone. To give these values some context, Matt Carpenter swings at 17% of pitches outside the strike zone, while Randal Grichuk swings at 35% of pitches outside the zone (plate-discipline profiles can be found here).

These next two tables show two things: the consistency with which Fowler has struggled, and the consistency with which Wong has excelled.

Fowler has been an average hitter against the four-seam fastball. Against all other pitches, he isn’t hitting above the Mendoza line. When we examine the same data for Wong, we see a different kind of consistency.

Kolten has excelled against most pitches. This is the profile of a complete major-league hitter. Of course, this isn’t the largest sample size. But a quarter of the way through the season, I’m sure many of you are as surprised as I was to see how consistent Kolten has been. Sure, he’s struggled with the sinker and doesn’t hit for much power, but I would argue that the Cardinals only need their leadoff hitter to get on base. In fact, Fowler’s pop would be a welcome addition with runners on base lower in the lineup.

The Cardinals have a few options for the leadoff position. The three players that have been used thus far (Fowler, Wong, Garcia), as well as Matt Carpenter. Because his power is needed in the 3-spot, Carpenter isn’t an option with this roster. Garcia isn’t an everyday player, so that option is not realistic either. And when it comes down to Fowler and Wong, the outfielder’s struggles have opened the door for the young infielder. It’s up to Matheny now.

While Phillies first-base prospect Rhys Hoskins spent April on the Triple-A leaderboards, his big-league counterpart, Tommy Joseph, was among the least productive everyday players in the majors. Through the first month of the season, Joseph hit for a dreadful .179/.222/.254 slash line, along with a .211 wOBA and 25 wRC+. While a BABIP of .234 didn’t do him any favors, Joseph’s 27.8 K% and 5.6 BB% suggested that the 26-year old was simply being outmatched at the plate. All in all, despite passable defense at first base, Joseph’s lack of offensive output was enough for him to accumulate -0.7 WAR, tied for the third-lowest in the league.

It didn’t take long for the local media to start calling for Joseph’s spot in the starting lineup. Hoskins, who Eric Longenhagen rated in February as the Phillies’ ninth-best prospect, ended the month with six home runs and a .338 batting average — numbers that look even better when compared to Joseph’s disappointing output. By the last week of April, some Phillies writers were suggesting promoting Hoskins to the big-league starting lineup in favor of Joseph. Even the sports section of the city’s largest newspaper demanded the team make the switch. As longtime Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Bob Brookover wrote in the first week of May, Hoskins “[c]utting into Joseph’s playing time when he’s hitting below the Mendoza Line would not cause nearly as much turmoil as [Joseph cutting into Ryan Howard’s playing time] did a year ago.”

Since the beginning of May, though, the cries to replace Joseph in the lineup have, for the most part, been quieting down. This trend can be attributed to the fact that, surprisingly enough, Tommy Joseph has been one of Major League Baseball’s best hitters this month. Since the beginning of May, Joseph’s 185 wRC+, .459 wOBA, and .344 ISO rank eighth, eighth, and twelfth, respectively, among nearly two hundred qualifying batters. Take a look at how drastically his rolling wOBA has shifted throughout the first two months of the season:

Among qualifying batters, Joseph’s improvement in wOBA from April to May was the largest such increase in the league. Such a change seems unlikely to organically occur, although luck certainly can play a part (I would be remiss not to mention Joseph’s .390 May BABIP). I expect, however, that there’s a more concrete explanation for Joseph’s recent success. It doesn’t take a very long look at Joseph’s numbers to get an idea of how he altered his approach. Put simply, Joseph stopped swinging at everything in and around the strike zone. Compare the following two heat maps, one from April and one from May:

On April 30, Tommy Joseph had an O-Swing%, Z-Swing%, and overall Swing% of 38.8, 78.8, and 56.2, respectively. If those percentages sound high, it’s because they are; they ranked eighth, fifteenth, and eighth highest in the majors. May, on the other hand, has been a different story. While Joseph has still been chasing up-and-away pitches, he’s become far more adept at laying off of pitches on the inner half of the plate (even though he’s seen ten percent fewer fastballs), and has cut down his swinging rate in virtually every other section of the strike zone. With a May O-Swing% of 27.2, Z-Swing% of 63.9, and Swing% of 41.9, one of the majors’ most free-swinging hitters has been playing like one who, while not exactly Joey Votto, is far less extreme, relative to the rest of the league, than he was in April.

Interestingly, Joseph’s contact rates haven’t significantly changed since he started taking a more patient approach at the plate. We would, however, expect an improvement in the quality of his contact. His hard- and soft-hit percentages have trended in opposite directions since the beginning of the month, as have his line drive and ground ball rates:

While Joseph’s improvements must be encouraging for a Phillies team that has struggled mightily as of late, it’s still hard to imagine Tommy Joseph being a key contributor on the next contending Phillies team. As mentioned earlier, Joseph has had a .390 BABIP this month, and, even with his more refined approach at the dish, his 22.5 K% and 9.9 BB% in May shouldn’t exactly reassure anyone that he’s anything more than a solid placeholder while the team rebuilds. If Joseph can continue exhibiting patience at the plate, though, he might just put up numbers impressive enough to curb the antsiness of the more impatient members of the Philadelphia fandom. Phillies supporters shouldn’t necessarily give up on the idea that Rhys Hoskins, if he keeps mashing in Triple-A, could reach the majors this year — especially if Joseph gets injured — but as a rebuilding team, the Phillies have no need to rush any of their promising young prospects to Philadelphia. And if Joseph’s discipline changes are for real, they might find themselves with a better placeholder at first base than they may have been expecting.

When the season started I said that Vince Velasquez would be the future of the Phillies…if he could wrangle his fastball usage.

He hasn’t. And after only the first quarter of the season, that might not seem quite newsworthy. His last start was pretty much exactly what we’ve come to expect from him: 6 strikeouts, 2 walks, and 5 earned runs in 5.1 innings. But after the game Velasquez said, “I don’t know. I’m just clueless right now. I’m just running around like a chicken without a head.”

Those are the comments of a player worn down by his own consistent, tepid performance like running water does to the sides of a canyon. Manager Pete Mackanin had his own thoughts after the game. Per Corey Seidman of CSN Philly:

“He just has trouble commanding his secondary pitches,” Mackanin said. “He needs to command his secondary pitches. Once he does that, hitters can’t sit on his fastball. He’s got a real high swing-and-miss percentage on his fastball. I think he’s second to (Max) Scherzer.

“Players don’t square up his fastball but when you can’t command or show the command of your secondary stuff, then they just keep looking for the heater. And if you make mistakes with it, it gets hit. So his challenge is to start gaining better command of his breaking balls.

“If he throws a slider to a hitter and he swings and misses at it and it’s out of the strike zone, he’s got to have the ability to throw another one in the same location instead of just throwing a fastball.”

As of this writing, the Phillies have lost 19 of the last 23 games. They’re in the middle of a rebuild, a phase where they’re expecting the first wave of the next generation to start producing. Velazquez is a critical piece. With how the big picture and current moment are swirling, Mackanin’s comments are worth examining.

Yes, Velasquez needs to throw less fastballs. His approach is nearly identical to last year. In fact, with two strikes, he’s throwing the heater more often. Given that, even having command of his secondaries may not influence his results much.

And we may not be in a position to say he’s not confident in his secondary offerings because he’s thrown them so irregularly. He’s employed his fastball at least four times more than all of his secondary pitches in two-strike counts this year.

The relaxed environment built by the team seems to have enabled certain guys to grow into, or maybe even outgrow, expectations. Freddy Galvis, Odubel Herrera, and Cesar Hernandez all fit that description. But Velasquez could require additional structure. There might already be a successful player in the league to use as a template, too: Chris Archer.

Archer is mostly a two-pitch pitcher. His fastball (used 47.4% of the time this season) and slider (45.1%) account for nearly every pitch he’s thrown in 2017. He sprinkles in a changeup (6.6%) as the game goes on to keep hitters honest when they see him a second and third time. He’s used his slider in two-strike counts this year just about as much as Velasquez has used his fastball, so there’s already some semblance of a formula Velasquez knows that could help him transition his mental approach.

By movement, Velasquez’s slider is basically a flatter, faster version of his curveball. It hasn’t been effective. He’s thrown it less this year than last, but further reducing its use would leave him with an electric four-seamer, a sharp curve, and a solid changeup.

The repertoire would be different from Archer’s, and the effectiveness of its differences could be debated, but the goal would be straightforward: simplify Velasquez’s game, so that when he does find himself in a two-strike count, his fastball could play up like Archer’s slider. Get him out of his head and let his stuff do the talking because it is capable of speaking for itself.

Once he feels comfortable with this strategy, Velasquez could add to the velocity gap between his fastball and changeup, which could provide some much-needed guile to his game. And while it might seem foolhardy to think of step two of a plan for a struggling player before they even start step one, it’s vital, because he’s never had more than one step to his approach.

It’s been apparent for some time that Velasquez throwing only the fastball wouldn’t be enough, no matter how good it is. Now we know he knows it, too, and we’re all waiting for the next step.

No, you shouldn’t. Well, that was easy. I’ll be moving on to my “Why Haven’t You Bought Jeff Samardzija Yet?” article now.

OK, so it’s not quite that simple and I suppose you want some things like facts, charts, numbers, etc, etc.  You FanGraphs readers are all the same.

Zack Cozart has been a bit of a fantasy darling early this year. Writers have pointed out his 13%+ walk rate to begin the year. His improved .230+ ISO. His .340+ batting average (I hope this is still valid by the time we go live, because it probably won’t be). Because you’re FanGraphs readers, I also know you’ve already looked at his .400 BABIP and processed the fact that he’ll likely regress, but how far? To what level? Will he be 12-team mixed relevant? 10-team? I’d like to take a shot at answering those questions.

First of all, it’s not all bad news with Cozart. As Travis Sawchik would say, Cozart has joined the merry band of fly-ball revolutionaries, as evidenced by his increased fly-ball rate from 2013 to 2016, and he was on my list of possible value picks coming into auction season. His overall value in home-run leagues is capped by his HR/FB%, but I play in quite a few TB leagues so I wanted to keep an eye on him.

I have a tool I like I built in Excel years ago to monitor BABIP-inflated statistics, and to regress the triple slash lines based on expected normalish-BABIP for ROS.

While Cozart is currently sporting a triple slash line of .348/.428/.585, his .394 BABIP says that he should have approximately 10-13 fewer hits than he’s accumulated this far. It’s ~10 hits if you assume a league-average BABIP and ~13 hits if you assume his career .281 BABIP. What this means for you is that Cozart’s talent level right now is only supporting a .251/.331/.528 triple slash, or .274/.354/.541 if you believe he’ll overachieve his career BABIP.

You may be thinking, okay, that’s great, sign me up, but there’s just one more outlier caveat on Cozart’s amazing start to this season. Did you spot it?  He has four triples already! Unless you’re an extremely speedy player, and Cozart is not, triples basically come down to batted-ball or fielding luck. Hit it in just the right spot, or have a fielder take a bad run at a ball, and voila, you’ve got a triple (when you’re not fast).

If we were forecasting Cozart’s triples for the rest of the season, based on his lifetime triples output, he might accumulate three more triples over the course of the final ~125 games, and we should probably have expected him to have only one or two thus far this season. If we correct for this we can adjust his SLG to somewhere between .485-.495, or another way to look at it is via his ISO which I’d forecast to be somewhere around .170-.185.

Overall, if we’re projecting Cozart out over the rest of the season, I think it would be safe to bank on something in the range of .260/.340/.490, which isn’t a bad player and allows for some of his HR/FB% luck to stick in his projection. For those of you playing in OBP leagues, you can monitor the walk rate and perhaps you’ll get some new-found value there this year. With the growth we’ve seen in Cozart’s fly-ball rate, along with his corresponding doubles and home-run output over the past three years, he should safely set career highs in SLG and WAR.