Archive for Player Analysis

Jeff Zimmerman posted an interesting article on Friday. It prompted me to try to analyze the relationship between (i) an outfielder’s ability to make plays, and (ii) an outfielder’s ability to save runs. From my analysis below, the relationship is not as hand-in-glove as I initially would have thought.

From what I understood about Jeff’s article, he advanced a new defensive metric called “PMR,” which stands for Plays Made Ratio. Jeff calculated this ratio using data from Inside Edge, which categorizes every ball in play into one of six buckets. Jeff explains:

Most of the fielding data falls into two categories. The zero percentage plays are just that, impossible plays, and make up 23.2% of all the balls in play. Balls in this bucket are never caught and always have a 0% value. The other major range is the Routine Plays or the 90% to 100% bin. Defenders make outs on 97.9% of these plays, which make up 64.0% of all the plays in the field; the 2.1% which aren’t made are mostly errors. In total, 87.2% of all plays are graded out as either automatic hits or outs; it is the final ~13% which really determine if a defender is above or below average.

Between almost always and never, four categories remain. Even though each category has a defined range, like 40% to 60%, the average amount of plays made is not exactly in the middle of each range. Here are the actual percentage of plays made in each of the four ranges.

With these league average values and each individual player’s values, a ratio of number of plays made compared to the league average value can be calculated. To have the same output of stats like FIP- and wRC+, I put Plays Made Ratio on a 100 scale where a value like 125 is 25% better than the league average. Here is the long form formula and Jason Heyward’s value determined for an example.

Plays Made Ratio = ((Plays made from 1% to 90%)/((1% to 10% chances * .063%)+( 10% to 40% chances * .289)+ (40% to 60% chances * .576) + (60% to 90% chances * .805))) * 100

Heyward’s Plays Made Ratio = ((1+10+9+26)/((14*.063)+(16*.289)+(9*.576)+(27*.805)))*100

Heyward’s Plays Made Ratio = (46/32.4)*100

Heyward’s Plays Made Ratio = 142

Heyward had a heck of a season. Of the 66 playable balls hit to him, normally only 32 of them would have been caught for an out. Heyward was able to get to 46 of them, or 42% better than the league average. He has consistently had above league average values with a 133 value in 2012 and 125 in 2013.

Jeff posits that the new PFM metric gives us new insight that FanGraphs current go-to defensive metric (Ultimate Zone Rating) does not:

Now remember this stat [PMR] only looks at how often a fielder would have made the play considering their position on the field. The team could be playing its outfielders back to prevent a double or their infielders in for a bunt which could put the defender out of position. Additionally, it doesn’t look at the final results of the play (at least for now). If Sir Dive Alot is playing in the outfield and he loves to try to catch every ball hit his way, then he will get to a few extra flyballs by diving all the time, but those he doesn’t get to will pass him by for more doubles and triples. Also, an outfielder could be good at making plays while coming in versus going deep; balls which fall in over his head would be more damaging than those which fall for shallow singles. While his Plays Made Ratio may be high, the number of runs he saves, as seen by UZR or Defensive Runs Saved, may be lower by comparison.

This got me thinking about the relationship between a player’s PMR and his UZR, and, more specifically, his RngR. As I understand RngR, it is the component of UZR that estimates the number of runs a player saves, or surrenders, due to his range. RngR isolates the contribution a player’s range makes to his Ultimate Zone Rating by ignoring the contributions from his arm and his ability to limit errors.

Intuitively, it would make sense that a player’s PMR and his RngR would be strongly correlated. In other words, a player whose range allows him to make more plays than average would also be the same type of player whose range would allow him to save more runs than average. A simple two-by-two matrix, with RngR along the left side and PMR along the top would show the following quadrants:

My intuition is that players would fall in either quadrant (2) or quadrant (3). The interesting questions arise with players that would fall in quadrant (1) (those who exhibit poor range, but whose range saves runs), and in quadrant (4) (those who exhibit good range, but whose range does not save runs). There are several explanations for why a player may fall into quadrant (1) or (4).

Jeff noted three possible explanations.  First, a player may be overly aggressive, which would may lead to more outs (a higher PMR) but also more misplays resulting in doubles and triples (a lower RngR). Second, “an outfielder could be good at making plays while coming in versus going deep; balls which fall in over his head would be more damaging than those which fall for shallow singles. While his Plays Made Ratio may be high, the number of runs he saves, as seen by UZR or Defensive Runs Saved, may be lower by comparison.” Third, a player (or his team) may be particularly well adept at positioning himself, which would amplify his RngR rating, but not necessarily his PMR (as Jeff noted when discussing Nick Markakis).

How does the relationship between PMR and RngR look if it is applied to actual players? To find out, I looked at all center fielders who between 2012 and 2014 had at least 70 “total chances” (defined by Inside Edge as balls hit to that fielder where there is between a 1% and 90% likelihood that the ball is caught). That provided me a list of 18 center fielders. Next, I calculated each player’s rate-based RngR/150 (calculated by his total RngR divided by the innings he played in center field, multiplied by nine, multiplied by 150). That revealed the following table:

A scatter chart of this information looks like this. I also added a best-fit line to the scatter plot. My intuition that a player’s RngR/150 would be strongly correlated with his PMR is contradicted by this data. In fact, according to this data, (and based on my very limited skillset at statistical analysis, which may be completely incorrect), only 15% of the runs saved due to these 18 center fielders’ range can be explained by their Plays Made Ratio.

Even more interesting than the two-by-two matrix characterization introduced above, are the points on the scatter plot that are either way above (Juan Lagares and Lorenzo Cain) and way below (Dexter Fowler) the linear trendline.

The data suggest that Lagares/Cain and Fowler have similar range in center field, but that the former use their range to save more runs than the latter. One possible implication of this information is that Fowler is not optimizing his ability and that through better decision-making (such as being more aggressive or less aggressive on fly balls) or better positioning he could save more runs. As discussed earlier, it could also mean that Fowler is not (relatively) adept at playing balls hit over his head or in the gap, which leads to more doubles and triples.

On a larger scale, a possible implication of this data is that teams could significantly improve the amount of runs their center fielders save by (i) coaching their center fielders to make optimal decisions regarding their aggressiveness and (ii) properly positioning their center fielders. I would be curious to analyze what is the optimal amount of aggression a center fielder would have in going after balls hit to the outfield, the optimal way to position himself. For example, is it better to play shallow and be aggressive in cutting off singles (which Lagares has a reputation of doing) or to play deep? Those questions are best answered in a follow-up post/article.

The Oakland Athletics may have finally completed their roster turnover on Wednesday with their most recent deal sending Yunel Escobar to Washington for RP Tyler Clippard. However, you can never know if Billy Beane is finished making moves. With that being said, I’d like to break down the roster from last year to this year and assess whether or not the team will actually regress in 2015. The fact is that the Athletics got quite a bit younger this offseason and acquired many players with a lot of team control remaining. The distant future appears brighter now than it did prior to this offseason, but the main question is, will the Athletics be able to compete in 2015 as well as they would have prior to the roster turnover? Lets take a look at the numbers:

STARTING LINEUP

I will start by comparing the most common nine players in the A’s lineup last year to their projected starting nine this year, using WAR and wRC+:

[All stats give on the chart will represent the 2014 season in the MLB only. In further commentary I may bring up career numbers or minor league numbers for some players.]

2014 AVG WAR = 2.1 / Total wRC+ = 929

2015 AVG WAR = 1.7 / Total wRC+ = 937

As shocking as it may seem, this displays that the A’s should in fact score more runs with their lineup in 2015 than they did with Donaldson, Moss and Cespedes in the heart of their lineup last season. Although, this chart only accounts for 2014 stats, in which Billy Butler (among others) had an off year. If the A’s can get him back to, or even near his 2012 form, in which his WAR was 2.9 and his wRC+ was 139, they could be in for a significant upgrade on offense as a whole. One of the reasons why this lineup has the potential to be more successful even after losing a guy like Donaldson is because of the acquisition of Ben Zobrist. While Brett Lawrie is -4.7 to Donaldson in WAR and -28 to Donaldson in wRC+, Zobrist is +5.4 to Sogard in WAR and +52 to Sogard in wRC+, more than making up for the loss of Donaldson. While the A’s did use a lot of other DH besides Callaspo in 2014, he totaled the greatest amount of plate appearances from that spot, which might lower the 2014 numbers a little.

The average WAR is down slightly from last season, but with Stephen Vogt behind the plate and Marcus Semien most likely getting the every day job at SS, the A’s feel they are upgrading defensively. Semien’s numbers represent his slim 255 plate appearances in the majors last season, but in TripleA his wRC+ was 142. You cannot expect that out of Semien at the major league level, but it shows that he has potential to improve in 2015. The A’s did use a lot of players at each position last season and they will again in 2015; that is why it is important to also take a look at the bench players from last year and the projected bench for this year.

BENCH

While the 25-man roster is not set in stone for 2015 just yet, here is last year’s most commonly used bench players versus next year’s projected bench.

2014 AVG WAR = 1.1 / TOTAL wRC+ = 344

2015 AVG WAR = .48 / TOTAL wRC+ = 367(407)

While these numbers are a bit skewed due to the fact that Canha has not yet reached the majors and also because Jaso was actually a starter while he was healthy, they do give a good idea of what to expect in 2015. Sogard takes over for Punto as the reserve infielder. Fuld and Gentry will most likely platoon in LF, same goes for Vogt and Phegley at C. Since Fuld and Vogt are LH, they will see more time in the starting lineup, leaving Gentry and Phegley on the list of bench players for 2015. Gentry and Phegley will see most their time against lefties, which will likely help their overall numbers. The A’s always do a great job shifting their lineup to create the match ups they want, expect more of the same with platoons and late pinch hitting in 2015.

STARTING ROTATION

The starting rotation is an area where a lot of people say they A’s have question marks. This may be due to the fact that they lost Jon Lester and Jason Hammel to free agency and traded away Jeff Samardzija to the White Sox earlier this off season. However, the A’s held the best record in baseball for months in 2014 with a rotation featuring Sonny Gray, Scott Kazmir, Jesse Chavez, Drew Pomeranz and Tommy Milone. Four of those guys will be returning in 2015, with a slew of other young arms fighting for a spot in the rotation. Anyone from Chris Bassitt, Jesse Hahn, Sean Nolin or Kendall Graveman would be an upgrade or at worst an equal replacement of Milone. Let’s take a look at the numbers for the five players who started the most games for the Athletics last season VS the A’s projected rotation for next season using ERA, WHIP and WAR from the 2014 season:

2014 AVG: ERA = 3.46 / WHIP = 1.22 / Avg WAR = 2.56

2015 AVG: ERA = 3.12 / WHIP = 1.18 / WAR = 1.96

Keep in mind that ERA and WHIP are better when they are lower and WAR is better if it is higher. While this list does not consist of Jon Lester, the A’s were at their best when they still had Chavez and Milone in their rotation. Also, it was a small sample size for Pomeranz, so we cannot expect numbers quite that solid again in 2015. However, with all that being said, the A’s, despite losing All-Stars, should not take more than a tiny step back in 2015. This rotation is still very solid and is in fact younger this year than last. Not only that, the A’s now have a lot more depth with three other pitchers not on this list that could fill a rotation spot, Chris Bassit, Sean Nolin and Kendall Graveman. Also, we cannot forget about the Tommy John rehabbers Jarrod Parker and AJ Griffin, who could make their way back into this rotation before the All-Star break. Both Parker and Griffin were huge contributors to the A’s success in both 2012 and 2013.

BULLPEN

There are a lot of similar faces coming back to the Athletics’ bullpen in 2015. So, instead of continuing with the format I’ve used for position players and the starting rotation I’m quickly going to compare Luke Gregerson and Tyler Clippard, the one main difference in the bullpen for 2015.

Player ERA / WHIP / WAR

Luke Gregerson 2.12 / 1.01 / 0.9

Tyler Clippard 2.18 / 1.00 / 1.5

These numbers are very similar, making Clippard a perfect replacement for Gregerson, taking over the 8th inning duties in front of incumbent closer Sean Doolittle. I don’t think many people expected the A’s to make a move to acquire another back end of the bullpen piece. Even after losing Gregerson, they seemed to have a very solid bullpen, but now it is even more solidified with a proven set-up man in Tyler Clippard. Another important thing to note about Clippard is his ability to create fly balls. His FB% in 2014 was 49.4% also, his IFFB% was 19.3% and that will likely increase mightily with him now pitching in Oakland. He is the perfect pitcher for the o.Co Coliseum. The A’s will pay Clippard more than they would have paid Escobar in 2015, but they are saving money in the long run due to the fact the Escobar is owed 14 million over the next two seasons and Clippard becomes a free agent after this season (in which he will make around 9 million).

Now let’s take a look at 12 potential options for the Athletics bullpen in 2015. Some of them are locks, but the others will either gain a spot due to the fact that they did not make it into the rotation or if they have a solid showing in spring training.

There are a lot of very solid options for the A’s bullpen in 2015. I’d expect to see, Doolittle, Clippard, O’Flaherty, Cook, Otero and Abad for sure, but I expect all of these guys to make an impact at some point, if not this season then in 2016.

TAKEAWAY

The Athletics have a very deep pitching staff. With Sonny Gray and Scott Kazmir headlining the rotation, they have a plethora of options to fill the remaining three spots. Pomeranz, Hahn and Chavez look to be the leading candidates, although Billy Beane himself has mentioned Kendall Graveman as someone he sees making the rotation out of spring training. The A’s also have a very strong bullpen, especially after the recent acquisition of All-Star set-up man Tyler Clippard. After losing Josh Donaldson, Brandon Moss, Yoenis Cespedes and Derek Norris (four All-Stars), the A’s lineup for 2015, according to wRC+ actually got better. It’s not always the big name All-Stars that make a team successful. Oakland has proven this many times in the past, most recently in 2012, right after an offseason makeover similar to this year’s. The one piece that has remained since before the 2012 makeover and after this 2015 makeover, is Coco Crisp. There cannot be enough said about the value of Crisp to the A’s organization. With Crisp healthy in CF and the newly acquired pieces filling in around him, I expect the A’s to be back competing for another American League West division title in 2015.

Brandon McCarthy got off to a rough start in 2014 with the Arizona Diamondbacks. Between the atrocious ERA (5.01) and the seemingly endless supply of baseballs leaving the yard (HR/FB rate of 20%), the D’Backs cut their losses and dealt McCarthy to the Yankees in early July for Vidal Nuno. What the Yankees saw was a pitcher who was terribly unlucky and just needed a little more time for variance to run its course. Well, and maybe a few things that needed adjusting.

McCarthy was among the league leaders in BABIP at the time of the trade with a .345 mark, and many seemed to think this number had to come down. BABIP after all is pretty volatile, and takes several years to stabilize, so we can expect a large amount of variance in a time period as short as a few months. The real questions are: how deserving was McCarthy of an inflated BABIP? Are there tendencies that make some pitchers more prone to higher rates than others? What can teams do to fix higher BABIPs?

First, let’s take a look at McCarthy’s zone profiles in 2014 before being traded.

No wonder hitters were teeing off against McCarthy; lefties saw plenty of offerings over the middle of the plate while righties were exclusively pitched low-and-away. Hitters could walk up to the plate with confidence knowing they’d either get a pitch in their wheelhouse or only in a few spots. This took any advantage of unpredictability out of the hands of McCarthy and subjected him to a higher than average BABIP.

Now, let’s look at how they changed after being dealt.

After coming over to New York, McCarthy looks like a completely different pitcher. The biggest changes appear to be throwing inside on right handed hitters and keeping the ball away from left handed hitters. His new found ability to mix up his locations helped keep hitters off-balance.

As for McCarthy’s pitch selection before and after the trade, that changed as well.

Left Handed Hitters

Right Handed Hitters

Left handed hitters saw a dramatic increase in four-seamers, with the sinker, cutter, and curve all being mixed in rather evenly. Righties also saw a drift away from the sinker and a more even distribution of pitches. The result was a modest .307 BABIP from July onwards. This all makes me wonder if the Yankees have found a market inefficiency — pitchers with an excellent skill set, an inflated BABIP, and zone profiles plus pitch arsenals that were all too predictable. Alter the sequencing to fix the pitcher, and you’ll see the outcomes line up more accurately with the underlying skill set.

Well, if they did it once, can they do it again? Or at least try to?

Enter Nathan Eovaldi. Eovaldi has impressed scouts for years with a blazing mid-90’s fastball. Unfortunately, the results haven’t matched his potential. Like McCarthy, Eovaldi was marred by the same tendencies- an inflated BABIP (.323) with an ERA that’s well above his FIP (4.37 vs 3.37), but he had an impressive walk rate (1.94 BB/9). His zone profiles provide some insight as well:

Eovaldi pitched almost exclusively down-and-away to right handed hitters in 2014, much like McCarthy before coming over to New York. Left handed hitters saw a buffet of pitches in the bottom half of the zone, with a high percentage coming low-and-in.  Eovaldi’s pitch usage was rather predictable as well.

Left Handed Hitters

Right Handed Hitters

Eovaldi features a fastball, slider and curve against LHH and only a fastball and slider against RHH. This would help explain his higher-than-normal BABIP — he’s just too predictable. Hitters known they can wait on 1 or 2 pitches in a general area and have good chance of guessing correctly. While Eovaldi didn’t have as wide of a pitch selection to choose from as McCarthy, I’m willing to bet the Yankees work with him to change this. I’m thinking that we see either a new pitch all together, or perhaps he works with pitching coach Larry Rothschild on his sinker and/or change. These adjustments plus more variance in the pitch location department could make a world of difference for Nathan Eovaldi in 2015.

I got caught up in an interesting Twitter debate Friday afternoon regarding Astros 2B Jose Altuve with FantasyAlarm.Com’s Ray Flowers that prompted a detailed response from Flowers about our Altuve dispute where he doubled down on his assertion that Altuve’s ADP of 10th overall is huge mistake.

The main crux of his argument is that Altuve is not an across-the-board contributor. He claims Altuve’s lack of power in this current environment makes him a terrible choice at the end of the 1st round.  In this article I’m going to demonstrate why this shouldn’t be a major concern for you.

Hitting Your Marks

In 5×5 rotisserie leagues, the goal is to construct a lineup that gives you a chance to accumulate as many points as possible in the various categories. In NFBC 15-team leagues, I’ve come up with these target numbers for each category.

Hitting each of these five offensive targets should put you in the Top 3 of each category, accumulating at least 65 of the maximum possible 75 points. There are 14 hitting positions to fill, so you are looking for these averages per active roster spot:

Value Is Value

The key to winning fantasy baseball leagues is to constantly find the best value in each of your picks no matter what round you are in. Getting power-happy in the early portion of the draft has been a trendy tactic over the past couple years as power has declined in baseball. Let’s look at a couple of the players Flowers suggested he’d rather pick over Jose Altuve in the 1st round and their Steamer projections:

NFBC has a player rating system that compares a player’s statistics to league average and creates a score to show what their true 5×5 Roto value is. Based on the above 2015 Steamer projections, here is where each of these players would have finished last season:

Altuve is the more valuable player based on 2015 Steamer projections (and most likely more valuable based on any credible projection system).

And now we get to Flowers’ main point. He says that “Power is harder to find than ever before.”  He is absolutely right but that does not mean there isn’t an island of misfit power bats available in the middle rounds. You should not be worried about missing out on power in the early rounds because THERE IS home run pop that you can add later in the draft.

In a recent NFBC draft of my own – where I took Altuve 12th overall – I had the powerful but flawed Chris Carter land right in my lap in the 10th round, 139th overall. Let’s look at his projection:

Carter, a source of tremendous power, has been scaring the daylights out of fantasy owners for the past couple of years. Nobody wants to take on his treacherous batting average as it will surely drag their team average into oblivion. Well because we took the proper value in the first round (Altuve), we are now in a position where Chris Carter is worth significantly more to us than to the guy who took Anthony Rendon or Adam Jones. We get extra value from Carter because we can absorb his batting average better than they can!

Here is what our first round pick, combined with Carter would look like as a composite player. Remember, we need 18 HRs, 66 Runs, 66 RBIs, 11 SBs, and .270 Avg to crack the Top 3 of those categories.

If we were to have chosen Rendon or Jones in the first round, Carter would be a terrible fit for us in the 10th round. We’d be in solid shape in three categories, but face crippling deficits in stolen bases and batting average. But because we chose Altuve (the most valuable of the 3 players), it allowed us to spend some of our excess batting average and stolen bases to acquire a middle-round power bat that nobody else wants to touch. With Altuve+Carter, we exceed our minimum requirements in FOUR categories and are not very far behind in a 5th.

A NFBC Draft Champions league that I won in 2013 stands out in my memory. The early rounds of the draft provided me a surplus of batting average and stolen bases, and I continued to take the best player available each round after that. The brutish Adam Dunn, who was coming off a terrible .159, 11 HR season, was getting drafted around 185th overall that year as people feared the damage his average would do. Because of the excess wealth I accumulated in other categories, Dunn was worth more to me than everybody else. I determined that if Dunn were to bounce back to the .220 range, I could absorb his average and bet that his home run power would return. After all, he did average 40 HRs a year for seven straight years prior to his 2012 abomination. I ended up being able to reach above his ADP and take him in the 11th round, 165th overall. He provided me with 41 HRs, 96 RBIs, and 87 runs in 2014 and was a key cog in winning the league.

Finding Speed

I suppose the counter argument to this approach would be, “Well we don’t need batting average lagging Chris Carter or Adam Dunn in the 10th round. Since we accumulated the extra power with Rendon or Jones, we can go after a speed merchant in these rounds. Perfectly reasonable case to state. You should be trying to balance your roster out. But does it work better than Altuve+Carter? Let’s look at the speedy Ben Revere, who went late in the 8th round of my draft, 118th overall. Under this scenario, since we took more power early, let’s grab this high average/stolen base machine from the Phillies and make up the ground we lost, right?

And our new composite player:

Revere is a light hitting lead off man with virtually zero pop. You have now elevated your composite player into the upper echelon in stolen bases and batting average at the expense of HRs, runs, and RBIs. Despite Revere getting drafted a round or two earlier than Carter, the combinations with Rendon or Jones are worse in those three categories compared to Altuve+Carter.

There’s a myth going around that cheap steals are always available late in the draft. While it’s true you can occasionally hit the jackpot on a Dee Gordon from time to time, it is a very risky play to ignoring steals early in hopes of finding one of these guys late. These players are also dangerous to the health of your power categories as you can see from the Revere example. It just seems like an unnecessary strategic risk to plan on these guys delivering for you. Other owners plot this same strategy and often they reach above ADP to grab one of the speedsters you were also planning on supplementing your power with. Roster construction? Out the window.

Also, Chris Carter is not your only option to complement your team in these middle rounds. There are several very good targets to keep an eye for if you’re lucky enough for Altuve to land in your lap at the end of the 1st round. Lucas Duda (.234, 24 HR) and Marcell Ozuna (.255, 22 HR) were both available in the 9th round. I personally drafted Brandon Moss (.248, 28 HR) in the 12th round. Pedro Alvarez (.242, 26 HR), I got in the 14th round. Again, I could absorb these averages because I repeatedly took the best player available earlier in the draft, often players with overlooked batting averages. I constantly kept an eye on my roster construction to ensure I could absorb these lower batting averages and lack of stolen bases.

In 2014, there were 56 hitters drafted between selections 201-to-300. 16 of these hitters would hit at least 18 home runs. Meanwhile, 15 of the 56 managed 11 steals.

Back to my particular draft this year, after choosing Altuve 12th, I took Jacoby Ellsbury with my 2nd round pick, 19th overall. Between these two players, Steamer projects only 24 home runs between them. Even though I happened to not grab any huge raw power bats in the first two rounds, I still managed to construct a 14-man lineup that is projected to hit the magical 250 HR mark without falling behind in the other categories.

Altuve and .300

A repeated argument was also made that Jose Altuve “is not lock to hit .300 this year”. I believe this is a very pessimistic position to take and I haven’t heard a sensible reason for it. This is a player who hit .286 over his first 1300 PAs as a 22-23 year old youngster. Despite increasing his Swing% rate to over 50% last year, he made more contact than ever (4.4% SwStr) with an uptick of power on his way to a ridiculous .343 average.  This is an elite hit tool.

Not even the most bullish Altuve supporter would think he’s going to hit .343 again. That would be a very unfair expectation. However, not a single person who is bearish on Altuve has made a compelling argument why this 24-year-old can’t hit .300 again. Of course Altuve is “not a lock to hit .300”. By that argument there is no player who is a lock to hit any of their projections, including Mike Trout.

Yes, HR power has declined over the years. But so has batting average. Over the last six years the league average has fallen from .264 to .251. You are not going to find too many players past the 10th round who are going to give you 600+ PAs of near .300 average to complement your sluggers, and if they do hit those numbers they are tremendously weak in other categories.

To wrap this up, I’m telling you not to buy into the hysterics that there is no power available after the early rounds. Do not buy into the major regression talk. You should have no fear in drafting Jose Altuve with your first selection if he’s the best value on the board.

Some people do not believe in “clutch”. The timing of hits is based on luck. If that is the case, then Allen Craig who hit .454 with runners in scoring position in 2013 is the luckiest man in baseball. But the baseball gods are a fickle bunch, and just as they bestow greatest on Allen Craig they quickly took it away. At the end of 2013, the baseball gods sent the injury plague to Mr. Craig. It was diagnosis as a Lisfranc fracture, and it has morphed Craig from a perfect fit for Fenway Park to a surefire disaster.

Without a doubt Craig is a professional hitter, he has been at all levels of professional baseball. But since that injury, the ability to turn on a baseball as evaded him. He has never been a dead pull hitter but most of his power has historically been to left field. In 2012-2013, nearly 63% of Craig’s long balls were to the left of center field (he hit 35 total home runs in 253 games)[1]. In case you have not heard of Fenway Park, there is a big green wall in left field that is only 310 feet away from home plate, not a bad place for a right handed power hitter. But as car companies know, the new model is not always better. In 2014, Craig devolved into a light hitting outfielder with little power to left field and the inability to crush inside fastballs. In 2013 before the injury, Craig hit .382 (50 of 131)[2] against inside fastballs. Post injury, he hit .189 (28 of 148).

Without the ability to pull the ball, power numbers to left field plummeted. Three of Craig’s eight home runs were to the left field side of center field in 2014[3].

Bostonians beware; shipping up to Boston may be the worst thing for Craig if he continues his trend.  Fenway is a haven for right handed power hitters who can play pepper off the Green Monster. But just a few feet left of Pesky’s Pole; right field at Fenway deepens to 380 feet and walks back to 420 feet before reaching straightaway center field. These are not exactly ideal conditions for a guy who just hit five of his eight home runs to the right of center field in 2014.In fact, only five of Craig’s home runs would have been home runs in Fenway[4].

Acquiring Allen Craig before 2014 would have been a masterful move for the Red Sox who were trying to acquire some depth in the outfield and at first base. But now they might be better off resurrecting the career of Mark Reynolds by letting him play pepper with the Green Monster (ironically the Cardinals signed him earlier this offseason) and shipping Craig out of Boston. If Craig’s 2014 season is any indication of 2015, only having limited power to the right side will not bode well for the Red Sox and Craig. If Craig cannot adjust to the inside fastball, he may be shipping out of Boston even faster than Bobby V.

After the 2013 season, Clay Buchholz was kind of interesting. He put up some crazy good numbers with an ERA/FIP/xFIP line of 1.74/2.78/3.41. It was clear that Buchholz was good in 2013, putting up a 3.2 WAR while being limited to just 108 innings of work. This may have caused some to be weary of Buchholz following the 2013 season. Sure he was good during the Red Sox championship run, but he also had trouble staying on the field. Combine that with several outliers, a lot of luck (.254 BABIP, 83.3% LOB%), and it was easy to see that there were a lot of red flags in Buchholz’s performance.  While we shouldn’t discredit 108 innings of awesome work, we also shouldn’t put all of our weight on it either. Buchholz’s 2014 season taught us that as well.

Buchholz’s 2014 season looked pretty bad.

In 2014, Buchholz put up an ERA/FIP/xFIP line of 5.34/4.01/4.04. The first thing that pops out is that awful ERA. However, ERA isn’t everything, and there’s a compelling argument that it’s not the most trustworthy statistic. However, we do know that run prevention is some kind of a skill. Buchholz’s RA9-WAR between 2013 and 2014 fell from 5.0 t0 -0.5. There was some bad luck as well. In order for Buchholz’s skillset to work he needs to have a low BABIP, and the seasons in which he has been successful his BABIPs were somewhere in the .250-.260 range. In 2014 his BABIP was .315, which was the highest it’s ever been aside from a 75- inning stint early in his career.  This is not entirely Buchholz’s fault, however it’s clear that he took a step back as a pitcher in 2014.

However, peripherally Buchholz actually seems in line with his career norms.

Buchholz has proven that he’s the type of pitcher who succeeds by outperforming his FIP, and for the most part he has done a decent job of doing just that. In his career year of 2011, he had nearly a 1.30 ERA-FIP differential, and in 2013 the trend was the same, with his ERA being a whole run lower than his FIP. It’s clear that this is how Buchholz has made himself an above-average starting pitcher. That’s not to say that this is not a skill set that can’t work. Matt Cain has always outperformed his FIPs, and done so at an elite level. Shelby Miller looks like the type of pitcher who may do the same thing. There are exceptions to everything, and it’s clear that there are some pitchers who can do a good job of beating out their FIPs. Buchholz may or may not be one of those pitchers.

It is clear that Buchholz, for a good chunk of his career, has masked his average to below-average peripherals by doing a good job of preventing runs from scoring. That eventually caught up with him in 2014 when his luck ran out. Regression from the 2013 season was inevitable. Buchholz increased his K% in from 16% in 2012 to 23%. This is what made his peripherals look really good in 2013. However, an increase in strikeouts isn’t always sustainable as the increase in strikeout rate usually doesn’t carry over into the next season.

Buchholz never struck out batters at such a high clip in his career and given that this was a small sample — 108 innings — regression in 2014 was predictable. However, it’s not like Buchholz regressed to something that was godawful in 2014. In fact, he actually regressed to something that was pretty similar to what he has always been. There were a couple of concerns throughout the season in terms of his ability to repeat his delivery, which is quite concerning, but at the end of the day the stuff hadn’t changed that much from 2013 to 2014.

Whiffs Per Swing: 

There was a decrease in his ability to get whiffs on two of his pitch categories. However, the decreases weren’t that extreme. One could label an 8% change on Whiffs per Swing on his off speed stuff as drastic, but at the same time this only regressed Buchholz back to getting strikeouts at a typical 16-17% rate rather than the 23%. At the end of the day, Buchholz’s skill set isn’t about striking guys out. His approach is about not walking too many guys, making weak contact and keeping the ball in the park. He has never excelled at being a command artist, in fact in some parts of his career he has been quite lousy at keeping his walk rate down as well as keeping the ball in the park. If a pitcher is not going to strike guys out at a high rate, in order to be elite he has to be able to excel at either keeping the ball in the park or not walking guys. Buchholz has been very okay at both keeping the ball in the park and not giving up walks.

Buchholz has built up a conventional reputation of being something special by posting low ERAs, a no hitter, and maybe some post-season dramatics. However, Buchholz may just be a mediocre pitcher masked by some stellar defense. He doesn’t have that stellar walk rate and he doesn’t seem immune to home runs like Matt Cain in his prime. However, Buchholz in 2014 wasn’t as bad as many thought he was. Sure a 4.06 FIP in 2014 — where pitching rules — isn’t the prettiest figure, but at the same time there are still plenty of teams that would consider the figure very serviceable. Positive regression is likely for Buchholz, however asking him to come back to those pretty looking ERAs is asking a lot. By FIP Buchholz has never been anything elite, and he has proven that he is nothing elite. Buchholz is what he is, a very serviceable pitcher with some highlights in his career such as postseason heroics and a no-hitter. Buchholz is not terrible nor is anything spectacular; he is somewhere in between.

Mets southpaw Jon Niese has something interesting going on and if the trend continues, he might not be so average in 2015.

One thing I enjoy doing is comparing 1st and 2nd half splits to spot anomalies and possible mid-season skill growth of players.  Niese’s 2014 splits stood out remarkably on two of my favorite metrics:  First pitch strike % (F-Strike) and Swinging Strike % (SwStr).

Niese has a career 61.4% F-Strike and 7.8 SwStr.  Last year’s first half he was struggling along with a 59.2% F-Strike and 5.8% SwStr.  Then something changed.  In the 2nd half his F-Strike soared to an elite level 67.8%.  SwStr rebounded to 8.6%.  What happened?

A solid changeup happened.

Read the rest of this entry »

Starting pitching is half of the fantasy baseball equation and when you take them in the early rounds you cannot afford to strike out.  Here are three starting pitchers you should be letting others draft along with seven other names you should consider as alternatives.

Read the rest of this entry »

I was planning on covering several overvalued starting pitchers in this next article but after analyzing Reds ace Johnny Cueto, I realized I might have enough material to fill an encyclopedia. Read the rest of this entry »

Ever since I became enamored by the baseball statistical community, I’ve tried to gather as much information as I could. I registered on several websites dedicated to the analysis of baseball statistics such as baseballprospectus.com or FanGraphs.com or HardballTimes.com. I read every book, article I could get my hands on and even tried my hand at producing my own research and analysis in order to achieve two goals in my life: 1. Publish my research and become a savvy baseball analytical mind; and 2. Work within a baseball organization.

My first basic analysis came in the form of three year projections in order to try my hand at fantasy baseball. Personally, I’m proud to say that my first dip within the analytical waters where fruitful as my projections helped me win my league 3 times out of 5 attempts[1]. But, after many years keeping my projections and questions to myself; I’ve finally felt compelled to start more serious research and publish my questions and results online to share with people interested in these topics. So, without further ado, I give you my first serious publication.

***

Many readers will often find that writers, commentators and analysts highly value a player before they reach their age 30 season. But, once they pass this mark, players will begin to gradually decline; their production will falter, they’re prone to getting injured more than once within the same season, their speed will begin to abandon them. In other words, the shine begins to disappear and is replaced by a shelled version of a player we, the fans, and managers value. Furthermore, I’ve often read in many articles that players even peak at the age of 27 – this being the season where a player will give his (all-time) best performance before beginning that slow decline into retirement.

Now, I have two problems with this:

1. What stats determine that a player’s best season is his age 27 season?
2. Does this peak age season vary for every position or are all players subjected to the same aging curve?

To answer the first question, I used player statistics starting from 1960 up to 2013 and looked specifically at power numbers – slugging percentage, isolated power and on-base plus slugging[2]. I then calculated each player’s age in accordance with their birthday and how old they would be by June 30^th and took this to be their age-season. Once I had this, I began running histograms in order to determine the lowest performance, highest performance, mean and first and third percentiles.

For this analysis, I only used the data for players who were between 20 and 35 years of aged during any given season. What I found, starting with SLG, was that players – power-wise – don’t reach their peak at 27 but after their 30s. A player’s SLG increases gradually as he gets older until he reaches his age 31-32 season. A player will have a mean SLG of 0.437 by age 27, while, during his age-32 season, the mean SLG will be 0.447 – ten percentile points higher or an increase of 2.3%.

So, as we can see, SLG-wise, a player will show a better performance past his 30^th birthday. But maybe I am biased. Maybe if I checked ISO, we will find different results.

What I found were very similar results. A player’s isolated power, again, on the mean, didn’t peak at age 27. The ISO was 0.159. And, the ISO didn’t peak during the age-32 season but a year earlier during the age 31 season. During this season, ISO was 0.167 while the next season it began to decline at 0.165. ISO increases by 5.0% during those five years.

Finally, I decided to take a look at OPS to see if I could find a similar pattern. Again, players mean OPS peaks during their age 32 season, going from 0.784 at their age 27 season to 0.801 by the time they’re 32. It’s not much of an increase (2.2%) but it’s something.

What I can determine, then, is that a player’s power begins to develop once he hits 27 years of age and will gradually increase right up to when he turns 32. But, after this, his power performance will begin to decline, though not by much.

Another thing that I concluded from looking at these three histograms is that, even though there are gradual increases every season.  Player performance – power-wise – will be fairly consistent from one season to the next. Save for the early seasons (21-25 when a player is still developing), there are no surprising jumps in power[3] from one age to the next. Therefore, though we might prefer younger players for cost control reasons, when we need power production, we can’t fully disregard an older player’s power performance. Chances are they will still produce the same.

***

Having checked how power changes as a player ages, I come to my second question: Does the aging curve differ across positions? Well in football – or soccer for Americans – we have four major positions: striker, midfielder, defense and goalkeeper. Through statistical analysis by Arsenal F.C.’s data department, Arsene Wenger, Arsenal’s manager, found that a players decline varies on the position he plays on the field. That is to say, a striker will age differently than a goalkeeper, and a defender will age different to these two positions.

And, as we all know, work at different positions takes a different toll on a player’s body. Catchers will suffer become more fatigued as a season rolls by than players at any other position; shortstops, as well, have a more demanding position that will require more physical effort. We expect different results from each of the three outfield positions. So, it would be natural that players at different positions age differently on the power curve[4].

What I found out was that my thoughts were correct: positioning on the diamond does affect a player’s power performance but not by much. These are the results based on the mean:

As we can see from the data, first basemen will usually be the first position players to peak. After them, the three outfield positions will peak at age 32. Catchers will then follow suit. Finally, the hot corner will peak at 34 and the middle infield will produce more power by the time they turn 35 than any of their previous years.

What we can conclude from this table is the following; because the demand on power from first base more than defense, players will tend to flex their muscles more often than not; whilst primarily defensive positions such as catcher, second base and shortstop will develop more power later in their careers than when they start off. Outfielders, on the other hand, tend to produce power throughout their careers.

The position that does surprise me is the hot corner. I would have expected third basemen to peak earlier in their careers because most players at the position are power hitters. Then again, there are many good defensive third basemen who aren’t big power players (I’m looking at you Juan Uribe).

***

After reviewing all the numbers, I can safely conclude that as players age, power doesn’t decline. On the contrary, power also increases though not by very much. Furthermore, the gradual increase in power at the plate will vary by position, much like a football – soccer – player’s performance will vary according to his position. Therefore, though we may like young players because of their hustle, cost-control and their energy, it doesn’t hurt to carry a few veterans in the lineup, if not to mentor the young ones, to provide some pop within the lineup.

[1] A small sample size, I admit, but nevertheless, a positive achievement as it encouraged me to delve deeper into baseball analytics.

[2] I didn’t look at OBP as I believe that this stat has more to do with a player’s ability at identifying pitch types, though in retrospect, this can also become better as a player ages and gains more experience.

[3] Though there are many outliers as you can see.

[4] I have charts and charts of histograms for each position measuring SLG, ISO and OPS but since I don’t want to oversaturate with information.