Last season was the year of the three true outcomes specialist.  Aaron Judge’s dominant three true outcomes season was the most prominent example of this: he ranked second in home runs (52) and walks (127) and first in strikeouts (208).  In total, 57% of his plate appearances resulted in one of the three true outcomes.  He was the American League Rookie of the Year and in the running for the 2017 American League Most Valuable Player award, finishing second.  His performance helped the Yankees reach the American League Division Series.

We know that the three true outcomes rate has been increasing.  In part, this is due to the average player increasing his rate of home runs, strikeouts and walks.  But there is also the unusual player in the mold of Judge who takes an extreme approach at the plate resulting in dominant three true outcomes seasons.  The number of these hitters has been increasing over time.

Figure 1. Three True Outcomes Specialists per Season, 1960-2017

View post on imgur.com

Figure 1 shows the number of dominant three true outcomes player seasons over time.  To get here I examined all players since 1913 with at least 170 plate appearances in a season.  I considered a dominant season one with a three true outcomes rate of at least 49%.  There have been 132 player seasons with a three true outcomes rate of at least 49%.  All of them have taken place after 1960.

The graph shows that the number of dominant seasons has been increasing over time.  Since Dave Nicholson first did it in 1962, most years have had at least one player cross the threshold.  Since 1994, every season has had at least one.  From 2001 to 2010 there were four seasons with five three outcomes hitters.  There was six in 2012 and eight in 2014.  The trend is currently peaking with 13 in 2016 and 16 in 2017.  The trend is a bit more extreme but similar to the average increases in three outcomes rates over time.  It seems that more players pursue (and teams tolerate) an approach to hitting that includes extreme rates of the three outcomes.

It is worth pointing out that those 16 players in 2017 account for about 4% of all players with at least 170 at-bats.  Three true outcomes specialists are more common but still rare.  Who are those 16 players?  Table 1 lists them including the home run, walk and strikeout rates, and the combined three true outcomes rate for the year.

Table 1. Three True Outcomes Specialists, 2017

The list includes many of the unique player stories of the year.  Aaron Judge’s rookie year was historic.  Joey Gallo made waves, particularly for his extreme three true outcomes rates.  Miguel Sano was an All-Star who helped lead the Twins to a bounce back year and a wildcard spot.  Eric Thames was a surprise story of the year, returning from a year in Japan and sparking the Brewers to an early lead in the National League Central.

Notable about this list is the young cohort of hitters who have consistently taken the all or nothing approach of the three true outcomes specialist.  Judge, Olson, and Blash all made their MLB debut in 2017.  Gallo still qualified as a rookie despite making his debut in 2016.  Keon Broxton, Ryan Schimpf, and Kyle Schwarber are in their second year.  Sano has been a specialist for three years running.  Sure, there are old hands like Napoli and Carter, and Davis who take the all or nothing approach, but the record number of specialists the last couple years have been due to this young cohort of three true outcomes specialists.  A new record will come down to 2018 rookies who practice this all or nothing approach heading into their major league debuts, and the number of teams willing to tolerate the strikeouts that come with this approach.

I ran some queries over at Baseball Savant and came across this tidbit of information. Since 2015, no other pitcher froze hitters on strike three more than Cleveland Indians’ Corey Kluber.

I decided to write an article on Kluber’s caught looking data along with how he’s able to be the best at getting hitters held up on that third strike.

Sifting through the last three years of Statcast data, and filtering the results down to a 5000 pitch minimum, Kluber ranks second overall to Clayton Kershaw (2.38%) in called third strike ratio to total pitches (2.28%).

So, why am I not writing about Kershaw? Well, I’m not concerned with ratio because, in this case, the ratio is independent of the number of times Kluber is able to deal that third strike. Kershaw might be better at working over hitters (thereby throwing less) but that doesn’t necessarily lend itself to more swing-less third strikes.

Kluber has thrown with two strikes nearly 1500 more times than Kershaw has in the last 3 years. But, Kershaw his pitched much less (mainly due to injuries), so we’re not going to ‘punish’ Kluber for this. And, we’re talking about a difference in the ratio that’s a tenth of a percent.

Moving on, I wondered if there is any advantage pitching in the American League? First, I looked at the overall plate discipline numbers for the entirety of Major League Baseball from 2015-2017.

So we have a 3-1 ratio of swings, as well as contact, in verses out of the zone. Now I’ll compare the AL vs NL three-year average.

We’re talking about fractions of a percent difference, with the only real disparity (if you can call it that) is the out of zone contact where the AL has a nearly 1% difference. So, there is no advantage to pitching in either league in terms of the type of at-bat you’ll experience.

Using a minimum of 1000 pitches each year, I found that Kluber finished first in 2015, third in 2016, and 2nd in 2017 in strikeouts looking. Furthermore, in context of plate appearances with two strikes, Kluber is ahead in the count (1-2/0-2 count) 24% of the time, even at 45%, and behind (or, a 3-2 count) 31% in those three years. Nearly a quarter of every two-strike situation, hitters are forced to be aggressive at the plate; and just under a third of the time, the batter has to make a mandatory choice.

Before I proceed,  I need to point out that there is some discrepancy as to what Kluber actually throws. He uses something of a sinking fastball that is hard to classify; it goes either way but my main source of research indicates it’s basically a sinker. And with his breaking pitches, which some sites call it a slider, some call it a curve, but it may be a slurve.  For argument’s sake, we will refer to both of them as a sinker and a slider.

So what is it that Kluber is using that’s laying waste to hitters on strike three? His sinker, which he’s thrown for strike three 108 times (50%) since 2015.

The above graph is his pitch selection after strike two the last three seasons.

His sinker location when he throws regardless of the count. Good luck telling a hitter where to concentrate his swing when he throws it.

However, something changed in 2017; he cut back on his bat-confining sinker by 7% and increased his change-up and slider/curve/slurve usage 1.5% and 7.3% respectively.

Just for curiosity’s sake, Kluber’s release points are nearly identical on all three pitches. So the hitter may not know whats coming at him with the intention of ending up as strike three (until its too late).

OK, so he leaned more on his slider last year. What can we make of that using his last three years’ run values in the context of runs above average?

The sinker, his bread and butter pitch for strikeouts, seems to hover around league average in terms of run value. Upping his change and slider usage appears to have paid dividends; Kluber seems to believe those are better suited to set the batter up for the strikeout. I would also venture to guess his sinker isn’t nearly as effective when thrown earlier in the count, hence the negative run value.

To note, Kluber’s two-strike stats: .136 BA/.392 OPS/10-1 K-BB

His sinker is clearly working when he needs it to.  Overall, it’s his least-effective pitch as hitters eat it up for a .300 average. Nevertheless, according to the data, it’s a tough pitch to gauge when used for that third strike.

Maybe Kluber will start using his slider more with two strikes. However, if he does so, that could cause him to be dethroned as the ‘King of Caught Looking’; his slider is swung at more than any other pitch he has, thereby causing a swinging strikeout.

Regardless, Kluber should still be able to put batters away with that devastating sinking fastball; opponents have 2-to-1 odds they’ll be dealing with it when the count has their backs are against the wall.  It usually doesn’t end well.

Mookie Betts went to an arbitration hearing. Marcus Stroman went to an arbitration hearing. George Springer and Jonathan Schoop did not. Other than the obvious differences between these players, there are others— related to the arbitration process itself— that may have affected these outcomes. Particularly, the differences and qualities of their filings.

To those unfamiliar with the arbitration process, eligible players and teams who are unable to come to a settlement ahead of the given deadline, submit salary filings which reflect either party’s evaluation of the player’s worth. Even after filing, teams and players are able to negotiate a one-year contract, but in some cases, a panel of arbitrators will decide a salary: either the player’s bid or the team’s bid, but not any number in between. This “final-offer arbitration” system is designed to create compromise and negotiation between bargaining parties as the threat of losing a large amount of money increases the incentive to settle early while a midpoint is still available. By extension, teams and players are encouraged to moderate their bids as an outlandish one is surely to be challenged and lost.

But, two different theories exist as to how the difference in bids itself affects the likelihood of hearing. Some argue that higher differences between teams and players in valuation would increase the likelihood of an arbitration hearing as the difference in bids reflects differences in valuation. However, others— namely Carell and Manchise in Negotiator Magazine (2013)— argue that differences in bids increase the risk of heading to a hearing and incentivize teams and players to hammer out a settlement.

Using two separate probability models and data on all players that filed for arbitration between 2011 and 2017, I examined the likelihood that a player goes to an arbitration hearing based on the differences in bids between the player and the team. The models both control for the player performance— by incorporating the effect of WAR— and utilize a dummy-variable for Super-Two status— controlling for the effect of players granted a “bonus year” of arbitration eligibility. The only difference between the two models is the variable of interest. The first uses the ratio of the absolute bid differences to the midpoint between the two salaries in order to measure the effect of a growing gap between filings relative to the actual size of the filings. The latter model separates the two effects to understand whether absolute gaps and absolute filing size have an effect on arbitration hearings. The model specifications and regression results are shown below. The table below essentially shows the marginal effect on likelihood to go to hearing due to a 1 unit change in the corresponding variable.

Model 1:

Model 2:

Results:

Both models demonstrate highly significant coefficients indicating that players with large gaps in salary filings are less likely to enter hearings. In fact, in the aggregate sample of players an increase of $100,000 in bid differences reduces the likelihood of a hearing by 2.7% and a 1% increase in Bid Difference to Midpoint Ratio decreases the likelihood of a hearing by 1.1%. This stands as an incredibly significant effect considering only 16.73% of players in the sample even made it to a hearing. Quite evidently, teams and players are incredibly risk-averse and fear losing the arbitration hearing and being forced to agree to a suboptimal salary. Thereby, the incentive to settle is driven up by higher bid differences.

Another interesting result shows that in all samples, an increase in filing midpoint by $100,000 increases hearing likelihood by 0.56%. As such, all else equal, players with higher filing midpoints are more likely to head to a hearing. The intuition behind this is best explained considering this with the negative coefficient on WAR, as both WAR as Midpoint are highly related but have opposite and significant signs. While WAR indicates that better players are less likely to head to a hearing, the positive coefficient on Midpoint states that “better” players are more likely to head to a hearing.

Though these indicate opposite effects, considering the effect of a high midpoint with WAR constant and vice-versa, the theory provides explanatory qualities. A more aggressive salary bid— given an exogenous and fixed level of production— is easier to dispute for a low-value player than a high-value player. Thus, independent of the player’s production level, a higher Midpoint leads to a higher likelihood to enter an arbitration hearing. As such, the positive coefficient on Midpoint likely reflects bad players bargaining for extra money rather than good players— whose effects on hearing likelihood are captured by the WAR coefficient. Considering the WAR coefficient independent of the filing midpoint as well, teams are more likely to focus their negotiation efforts on their better players, thereby reducing the likelihood high WAR players end up in hearing.

The final variable of interest in these regressions is the dummy-control for Super-Two status. As mentioned earlier, Super-Twos represent young players with substantial playing times who are rewarded with an extra year of arbitration eligibility. The models predict that Super-Two status increases the likelihood of hearings by 14.3%-16.9% depending on the model. As such, these young players seem more likely to challenge their teams in salary evaluations. This too comes as no surprise since challenging a team in your first (and bonus) year of arbitration eligibility can lead to significant level effects in subsequent arbitration hearings. A salary increase from the league minimum to $545,000 to even $1M can snowball into much larger raises in the following years with an arbitration victory. As such, these players may have a higher incentive to enter hearings and capture these multiplicative effects.

Now, revisiting the four cases above— Betts, Stroman, Springer, and Schoop— some interesting cases do pop out. Betts may not have been the most likely candidate to head to an arbitration hearing, the $3M difference between Betts and the Red Sox was incredibly high and reflected an enormous risk for either party entering a hearing. The predicted path for Betts was likely closer to George Springer’s contract extension or Jonathan Schoop’s 1-year deal. By contract, Stroman may represent the classic arbitration case, a low-risk hearing for either party, bargaining over a small fraction of their bids. And while Stroman expressed his frustration— or lack thereof— following the hearing, history shows that the Stromans of the world will likely end up there again. Ultimately, the final offer arbitration system does its job: those who disagree significantly tend to work toward compromise, while those who disagree a little take a change and roll the dice.

If you’re a baseball fan, you may have noticed you’ve been watching on average 10-15 minutes more baseball then you were 10 years ago.  Or maybe you are always switching between games like me and never stop to notice. If you’re not a fan, it’s probably why you don’t watch baseball in the first place: 3+ hour games, with only 18 minutes of real action. You are probably more of a football guy/gal right?  Believe it or not NFL games are even longer, and according to a WSJ study, deliver even less action.

The way the MLB is going, however, it may not be long before it dethrones the NFL as the slowest “Big Four” sport in America (and takes away one of my rebuttals to “baseball is boring”). Currently, the MLB is proposing pitch clocks and has suggested limiting privileges such as mound visits.

Before I get into the specific proposal and the consequences of these changes, let me give you some long winded insight into pace of play in the MLB.

A WSJ study back in 2013 broke down the game into about 4 different time elements:

1. Action ~ 18 minutes (11%)
2. Between batters ~ 34 minutes  (20%)
3. Between innings ~ 43 minutes (25%)
4. Between pitches ~ 74 minutes  (44%)

The time between pitches or “pace” is what everyone is focused on, and rightly so. It makes up almost twice as much time as any other time element and is almost solely responsible for the 11-12 minute increase in game length since 2008. Don’t jump to the conclusion that this is all the fault of the batter dilly-dallying or the pitcher taking his sweet time. This time also includes mound conferences, waiting for foul balls or balls in the dirt to be collected, shaking off signs and stepping off, etc. Even if we take all of those factors out, there are still two other integral elements that increase the total time between pitches: the total batters faced and the number of pitches per plate appearance (PA).  If either of these increase, the total time between pitches will increase by default. In the graph below, I separated the effects of each by holding the rest constant to 2008 levels to see how each factor would contribute to the total time added.

Any modest game time reduction due to declining total batters faced was made up by a surge in pitches per PA. Increasing pace between pitches makes up the rest.

As we have heard over and over again in the baseball world, the average game time has increased and is evident in the graph above. It’s not just that the number of long outlier games has increased; the median game time has actually crept up by about the same amount.

Plenty of players are at fault for the recent rise in game time. You can check out Travis Sawchik’s post about “Daniel Nava and the Human Rain Delays” or just check out the raw player data at FanGraphs. Rather than list the top violators here, I thought it would be amusing to make a useless mixed model statistic about pace of play.

A mixed model based statistic, like the one I created in this post, helps control for opposing batter/pitcher pace and for common situations that result in more time between pitches. Essentially, for the time between each pitch, we allocate some of the “blame” to the pitcher, batter, and the situation or “context”.

I derive the pace from PITCHf/x data, which contains details about each play and pitch of the regular season. I define pace as the time between any two consecutive pitches to the same batter excluding intervals that include pickoff throws, stolen bases, and other actions documented in PITCHF/x (This is very similar to FanGraphs’ definition, but they calculate pace by averaging over all pitches in the PA, while I calculate by pitch). For more specifics, as always, the code is on GitHub.

It’s a nice idea and all, but does context really matter?

The most obvious example comes from looking at the previous pitch. Foul balls or balls in the dirt trigger the whole routine involved in getting a new ball, which adds even more time. The graph below clearly shows that time lags when pitches aren’t caught by the catcher.

The biggest discrepancy comes with men on base. Even though pickoff attempts and stolen bases are removed from the pace calculation, it still doesn’t account for the game’s pitchers play with runners on base. This includes changing up their timing after coming set or stepping off the rubber to reset.

The remainder of the context I’ve included illustrates how pace slows with pressure and fatigue as players take that extra moment to compose themselves.

As the game approaches the last inning and the score gets closer, time between pitches rises (with the exception of a score differential of 0, since this often occurs in the early innings).

And similarly, as we get closer to the end of a PA from the pitcher’s point of view, pace slows.

Context plays a large part in pace meaning that some players who find themselves in notably slow situations, are not completely at fault. I created the mixed model statistic pace in context, or cPace, which accounts for all of the factors above. cPace can essentially be interpreted as the pace added above the average batter/pitcher, but can’t be compared across positions.

When comparing the correlation of Pace and cPace across years, cPace seems like a better representation of batters’ true tendencies. My guess is that, pitchers’ pace varies more than the average hitter, so many batters’ cPace values benefited from controlling for the pitcher and other context.

After creating cPace, I came up with a fun measure of overall pace: Expected Hours Added Per Season Above Average or xHSAA for short. It’s essentially what it sounds like: how many hours would this player add above average given 600 PA (or Batters Faced) in a season and league average pitches per PA (or BF).

The infamous tortoise, Marwin Gonzalez, leads all batters with over 3 extra hours per season more than the average batter.

That was fun. Now back to reality and MLB’s new rule changes. Here is the latest proposal via Ken Rosenthal:

MLB’s latest pace-of-play proposal, per sources: No pitch clock in ‘18. If games are 2:55 or longer, 18-second clock for ‘19 with no runners on base starting May 1, with ball-strike penalty. If in ‘19 games are 2:50 or longer, additional 20-second clock with runners on in ‘20.

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) February 1, 2018

The MLB tried to implement pace of play rules in 2015, one of which required batters to keep one foot inside the box with some exceptions. The rules seemed to be enforced less and less, but an 18- or 20-second pitch clock is not subjective and will potentially have drastic consequences for a league that averages 24 seconds in-between pitches. Some sources say the clock actually starts when the pitcher gets the ball. Since my pace measure includes the time between the last pitch and the pitcher receiving the ball, the real pace relative to clock rules may be 3-5 seconds faster.

Let’s assume that it’s five seconds to be safe. If a pitcher takes 20 seconds between two pitches, we will assume it’s 15 seconds. To estimate the percentage of pitches that would be affected by these new rules I took out any pitches not caught by the catcher, assuming all the pitches left were returned to the pitcher within the allotted five seconds.

The 18-second clock results in about 14% of the pitches with no runners on in 2017 resulting in violations of the pitch clock. This doesn’t even include potential limits on batters times outside the box or time limits between batters, so we can safely say this is a lower bound. If both of the clocks are implemented in 2020, at least 23% of all pitches would be in violation of the pitch clock(excluding first pitch of PA). Assume it only takes three seconds to return the ball to the pitcher instead of five, and that number jumps to 36%!

And now we are on the precipice of the 2018 season, which could produce the longest average game time in MLB history for the second year in a row as drastic changes loom ahead. I don’t know who decided that 3:05 was too long or that 15 minutes was a good amount of time to give back to the fans. Most likely just enough time for fans to catch the end of a Shark Tank marathon.

Anyways, if game times keep going up, something will eventually have to be done. However, even I, a relatively fast-paced pitcher in college, worry that pitch clocks will add yet another element to countless factors pitchers already think about on the mound.

There are certainly some other innovative ideas out there: Ken Rosenthal suggests the possibility of using headsets for communication between pitchers and catchers, and Victor Mather of the NYT suggests an air horn to bring in new pitchers instead of the manager. Heck, maybe it’ll come down to limiting the number of batting glove adjustments per game. Whatever the league implements will certainly be a jolt to players’ habits and hardcore baseball fans’ intractable traditionalist attitude. The strategy, technology, and physicality of today’s baseball is changing more rapidly than ever. When the rules catch up, I have a feeling we will still like baseball.

Eric Hosmer is one of those guys you either love or hate. His career, which includes one World Series championship and two American League pennants, has been just as polarizing.

First, who Hosmer is. Consider his WAR each season since 2011:
1.0
-1.7
3.2
0.0
3.5
-0.1
4.1

Interesting pattern; let’s look into that. The chart below is Hosmer’s career plate discipline (bolded data are positive WAR seasons).

Nothing appears to be out of sorts, no obvious clues to suggest a divergent plate approach.

Moving on, I noticed his BB/K rate did relate to his productive seasons; that alone can’t possibly explain his offensive oscillations. While his strikeout and walk rates did vary, the differences were a matter of two or three percentage points, at best.

So, I decided to look at his batted ball contact trends and found that his line drive rate directly correlated with his higher WAR seasons; 22%, 24%, 22% in 2013, 2015, and 2017 respectively with 19%, 17%, 17% in 2012, 2014, and 2016 accordingly.

OK, so his launch angle must be skewed. But, like his plate discipline, no outliers were demonstrated; his 2017 season should be easy to pick out. The below animation is a glance at Hosmer’s three-year launch angle charts, in chronological order.

How about his defense? Well, something seems off about that, too.

He’s won a Gold Glove at first base four out of the last five years. He looks great on the field, but unfortunately, his defense reflects the same way as a skinny mirror; his UZR/150 sits at -4.1 and his defensive runs saved are -21. Since 2013 (the first year he won the award) he ranks 13th in DRS and 12th in UZR/150 out of all qualifying first basemen. So, middle of the pack basically but worth four gold gloves? Probably not.

As we could have surmised, he’s simply an inconsistent player. Falling to one side of the fence yet?

One thing is a certainty; his best season was, oddly enough, his walk year with the Kansas City Royals in 2017. Now, I’m not about to speculate that Hosmer played up his last year with the Royals to get a payday (which he most certainly got). Looking back at his WAR in the first part of the article, you can see his seasonal fluctuations suggest he was due for a good year.

Keeping with the wavering support of Hosmer, is the contract he acquired to play first base with the San Diego Padres. His eight-year deal (with an opt-out in year five), will net him $21 million each season. He will draw 25.8% of team payroll. When his option year arrives in 2022, he’s due for a pay cut of $13 million in the final three years.

A soundly contructeed contract as, according to Sportrac’s evaluation, his market value is set at $20.6 million a year. To note, the best first baseman in baseball, Joey Votto, signed a ten-year deal in 2015 for $225 million dollars (full no-trade clause). Starting in 2018, Votto is slated to make just $4 million more than Hosmer will in the early portion of his deal. Did San Diego overspend? It all depends on what their future plans are for him.

In any case, Hosmer will join a team that, following his arrival, is currently 24th in team payroll. In 2019, they will hop to 23rd. It could go down further upon the arrival of their handful of prospects who look to be the core of the team.

So who will the Padres have going forward? Using wOBA, probably the most encompassing offensive statistic, I decided to forecast what the coming years will look like for Hosmer. It goes without saying that defense is nearly impossible to project. So, for argument’s sake, we’ll continue to assume Hosmer will be an average defender at first.

Since Hosmer’s rookie year in 2011, the league average wOBA is approximately .315. Hosmer should stay above that through the majority of the contract. But, let’s be more accurate. Using both progressive linear and polynomial trend line data (based on both Hosmer’s past performance and league average wOBA by age), I was able to formulate a projection for Hosmer through age 35 (no, I’m not going to lay out any of my gory math details).

OK, I lied. Here is the equation I used to come to my prediction :

From age 28 on is what we want to look on from. Hosmer is expected to take a dive offensively in 2019 with a bounce-back year in 2020, sticking with his past trends. A year before his opt-out clause (where he’s slated to make $13 million), his wOBA is expected to regress at a stable rate. He’ll continue to be league average or better during the twilight years of his career.

Prognosis

Hosmer seems to be appropriately compensated. You could argue that he’s making too much, but the Padres had the money to give him and they are banking on Hosmer to be highly productive at Petco. But, chances are (according to his history), he won’t maintain (or exceed) his 4.1WAR in 2018. He’ll be labeled as a bust but ought to have a few good years in him during the $21 million salary period. And, as my forecast chart shows, his 2022 pay cut comes at just the right time.

*This posts and more like it can be found over at The Junkball Daily

Jim Thome was elected to the Hall of Fame on January 24th.  Given my recent obsession with the three true outcomes, I immediately recognized the significance of this event.  I believe Jim Thome is the first, and likely the last three true outcomes Hall of Famer.

Table 1 shows Thome’s home run, walk, and strikeout rates along with his three true outcomes rate for each season.  The final column is the MLB average three true outcomes rate for the season.  Thome was a three true outcomes machine from 1996 until his retirement in 2012.

Table 1. Jim Thome, Three Outcomes Hall of Famer

Thome was part of a small group of specialists with multiple dominant three true outcomes seasons.  Table 2 provides a list of players with 4 or more of these dominant seasons.  I consider a season with at least 170 plate appearances and a 49% three true outcome rate as a dominant season.  The casual three true outcomes observer will recognize the players on this list as notable specialists.  Rob Deer, of course, is the iconic three true outcomes hitter.  I used Deer’s career three true outcomes rate of 49% and 4 dominant season to construct the table.

Table 2. Dominant Three True Outcomes Specialists

Thome’s 10 dominant seasons are more than any other player.  He is also the only Hall of Famer on the list.

Maybe Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame (depending on your PED era position).  Already past eligibility to be inducted by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA), perhaps he will have a chance in the future with the Veterans Committee.

Adam Dunn will be on the 2020 ballot.  He was a consistent three true outcomes specialist, but we will see if the BBWAA consider him a dominant player over the course of his career.

Russel Branyan and Jack Cust are interesting players to see on this list.  Branyan makes the list because of my 170 plate appearance requirement.  Cust was a dominant three true outcomes hitter for five straight years, 2007-2011.  Neither are on the Hall of Fame ballot.

Carter and Avila do not have contracts for 2018, but could land somewhere.  Davis is signed with Baltimore through 2022.  Joey Gallo and Aaron Judge are two young hitters in the three true outcomes mold not yet on the list.  So maybe it is too soon to make a judgement on the Hall of Fame potential of three true outcomes hitters in the future?

But I am going out on a limb to say that despite the trend towards three true outcomes baseball, we have seen our first and last three true outcomes Hall of Famer in Jim Thome.

Nobody’s perfect, especially umpires. This is the case at any level of the game. Be it softball, tee ball, or baseball, from Little League to the Big Leagues, you will have undeniably disagreed with a call that an ump has made.

Given the movement, velocity, and the newly anointed skill of pitch framing, it’s becoming more difficult for umpires to get the calls right. The robo ump has been discussed quite a bit but I’m not sure how I feel about a machine making decisions in lieu of accepting the concept of human error. We did it for decades before instant replay was instituted.

Umpires get balls and strikes wrong a lot. It’s the way it goes. Given that understanding, I wanted to know which pitcher has in recent years been the beneficiary of favorable calls.

And, like the umpires, not all (strike zone) charts are 100% accurate; leave a little room for error here.

I’ve parsed data on which pitchers have had the most declared strikes that were actually out of the zone. I decided to stop at 2014 because I felt that four years of information was sufficient for the study.

First, the accumulated data.

From 2014 to 2017, the amount of pitchers with phantom strikes has been increasing at fairly high rate; the biggest leap was from 2014 to 2015 (36 pitchers).

Interestingly, the pitchers with at least 100 ‘phantom strike’ calls has actually decreased.

And, despite the jump in total pitchers involved from ’14 to ’15, the pitchers with <=100 strikes called decreased at the highest rate.

Should we go tin foil hat and infer that umps are no longer favoring certain pitchers as much as they used to? Doubtful, but I’m not investigating integrity here.

So who is getting the most benefit from the perceptively visually impaired? First, I took the last four years of pitching data for our parameters. Then, I cut final the list down to a minimum of 10,000 pitches thrown. Lastly, I included only the top 20 pitchers in the group.

As we can see, Jon Lester of the Chicago Cubs has been the most aided overall; 562 non-strikes in four years.

For the optically minded, here is the pitch chart of Lester’s data.

Now, lets see if the percent of pitches has any impact on our leader(s).

Not a whole lot of variance, at least near the top. Lester clearly wins The MLB Umpires’ “Benefit of the Doubt Award”.

OK, so now we’ve got our man. Case closed, right?

Oh…that little caveat of ‘pitch framing’. Perhaps its that Lester has had great framing from his catchers. Let’s look into that.

For the moment, we are going to focus on Lester and his primary catcher from 2014-2016, David Ross.

Clearly 2014 was Lester’s most favorable year with Ross. That year, Lester ranked third in total pitches called favorably out of the zone (156) and 11th in ratio of calls (4.47).

The subsequent years with Ross are as follows:

2015- 6th (141), 10th (4.43)
2016- 5th (125), 7th (3.95)

Here’s where things get a bit intriguing. Recapping 2017, things appear to fall apart completely for the Cubs in the context of pitch framing.

The only catcher who was able to garner a positive framing rating was Kyle Schwarber, who caught just seven innings that year. But even his stats are far from impressive.

And how did Lester fair in terms of ‘phantom strikes’ that year? He ranked first in overall strikes called out of the zone (150) and fourth in total call ratio to pitches thrown (4.46).

He wasn’t all that far from the top under Ross, but was basically the frontman of the metrics in 2017.

Some things are hopelessly lost in the sphere of the unexplained. But, the research didn’t set out to find reasoning. In this case its more fun to be left with subjective theories. However, it’s a bit silly to think that there is actually an umpire conspiracy allowing Lester to succeed when he apparently shouldn’t.

My best guess is maybe they feel sorry for him since he can’t accurately throw the ball in the infield anywhere other than to the catcher (which did changed a bit in 2017)?

Regardless, Lester is our guy, here; receiving a sizable edge in terms of missed calls. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues this season.

I don’t need to sell this all that hard. You come to FanGraphs. You’ve seen the articles about Eric Hosmer, his wildly fluctuating value, and how that stacks up next to his big free agency ask. The horse is dead already — rest in peace, horse. And yet, here it is. Another caution label to throw on Eric Hosmer, who is beginning to look more caution label than man now.

Statcast has been wonderful in both expanding the breadth and the depth of baseball analysis among both professionals (unlike myself) and hobbyists (hey, like myself!). Where PITCHf/x allowed us deep inside the world of pitching, many aspects of hitting were largely a black box until recently. With the aid of launch angles, exit velocity, and xBA we can judge not only the hitter’s results, but the process by which he arrived at them — is the hitter making quality contact? For Hosmer, his 25 home runs in 2017 might lead you to believe that he is. Statcast, as we’ll see, respectfully disagrees.

When it comes to types of contact, barrels are the crème de la crème. MLB’s glossary has the in-depth details, but in short — hit ball good, ball do good things. Statcast captures every batted ball event and allows us to take a closer look at who’s clobbering the ball on a regular basis. The leaders in barrel rate (Barrels per batted ball event, min. 200 batted balls) — Aaron Judge (25.74%), Joey Gallo (22.13%), and J.D. Kong (19.48%). Nothing out of place here. The laggards will surprise you just as much as the leaders did (in that they will not surprise you at all) — Dee Gordon (0.18%), Darwin Barney (0.36%), and Ben Revere (0.37%).  Hosmer’s 6.99% barrel rate ranks 121st out of 282 players, just above the average of 6.83%.

This not-terrible barrel rate is being masked by a well-above-average home run rate. Hosmer’s 22.5% HR/FB% ranks 30th in that same sample of 282 players. How do barrel rate and HR/FB% correlate?

Very well, actually. It seems my “hit ball good” theory has legs. Highlighted in red is Hosmer, and from a glance, it’s clear he’s pretty outlier-y. Using the equation from the best fit line and plugging in Hosmer’s barrel rate yields a pedestrian 14.34% xHR/FB%. The difference between his HR/FB% and xHR/FB% ranks 3rd out of 282. Yikes.

You might be wondering if HR/FB%-xHR/FB% even means anything. What good is knowing the difference if we don’t know the standard deviation or the distribution of the sample? Let the following bell curve assuage your concerns. Highlighted in red, again, is Hosmer.

I don’t have a very good conclusion for this. I’ve seen people mention his worm-killing tendencies. I’ve seen concerns about his defense. I’ve seen mentions of his BABIP-inflated career year. What I hadn’t seen yet was just how out of line his power numbers looked to be with his contact quality, and for a player seeking as much money as he is, that’s one more thing to be concerned about.

A few recent researchers have been doing some fascinating work on the relationship between strikeouts and clutch and leverage performance. Some good work has been done and there has even been good content added to the comment sections of the respective articles. To start a talk on anything that has to do with clutch performance, there are a few things that need to be settled first.

What is clutch?

The stat called ‘clutch’ has aptly been called into question recently. Does it measure what it is intended to measure, is the main issue. Clutch is namely one’s ability to perform in high leverage situations vs. their performance in not-high leverage situations. If someone is notably poor in important PAs compared to their relative performance in lower leverage situations, clutch will let us know. However, if someone is a .310 hitter in all situations, that hitter is very good, but clutch is not really going to tell us much.

I think the topic has been popularized partly because of Aaron Judge, who had a notoriously low ‘clutch’ number last season. Many have blamed his process to striking out, which indeed could very well be a factor in the relative situational performance gap. However, Judge helped his team win last year despite his record-setting strikeout process. Still, Judge wasn’t even top 40 in WPA last year, but then again neither were a lot of good players. But are high strikeout guys really worse off in high leverage spots? The rationale with putting a strong contact hitter up to the plate in high leverage game-changing spots is intuitively obvious, but all else equal, is someone like Ichiro really better in game-changing situations than someone like Judge?

Many have been using clutch to compare relationships with other stats. To be quite honest, I can’t seem to get much of a statistical relationship between anything and ‘clutch’ so I am opting for a different route. We know that a player’s high leverage PAs are worth many times more to the importance of their team as low leverage situations, by about a factor of 10. If we assume WPA is the best way of measuring a player’s impact to their team winning in terms of coming through in leverage spots, then we can tackle the clutch problem, in the traditional sense of the word.

WPA is not perfect, like every other statistic that exists or will exist. There are a lot of factors that play into a player’s potential WPA. Things like place in the batting order, strength of teammates among other factors all play a part. But in terms of measuring performance in high leverage, it works quite well.

Examining the correlation matrix between WPA and several other variables tells is some interesting things.

**K=K% and BB=BB%

We assume already that a more skilled hitter is going to better be able to perform in high leverage situations than a not as skilled hitter. What we see is that K% appears to have a negative relationship with WPA, but not a strong one, and not as strong as BB%, which has a positive relationship. Looking at statistics like wOBA, K% and BB% along with WPA can be tricky because players with good wRC numbers can also strike out a lot. See Mike Trout a few years back. Those same players can also walk a lot. I like this correlation matrix because it also shows the relationship between stats like wOBA and K%, which you can see are negatively correlated but also very thinly. The relationship between stats like these will not be perfect. Again, productive hitters can still strikeout a lot. Those same players again can also walk a lot. This helps to lend evidence to confirm that a walk is much more valuable than a strikeout is detrimental.

I’ll add a few more variables to the correlation matrix without trying to make it too messy.

We see again that WPA and wOBA show the strongest relationship. The matrix also suggests that we debunk the myth that ground ball competent hitters lead to better performance in high leverage situations.

So why do we judge players like Judge (no pun intended) so much for their proneness to striking out, when overall, they are very productive hitters who still produce runs for their teams? The answer is that we probably shouldn’t. But it wouldn’t be right just to stop there.

So how exactly should we value strikeouts? One comment in a recent article mentioned that when measuring clutch against K% and BB%, he or she finds a statistically significant negative relationship between K% and clutch. However, that statistical significance goes away when also controlling for batting averages. Interestingly, I found the same is true when using WPA as the dependent variable but instead of using batting average, I used wOBA.

To further test this, I use an Ordinary Least Squares Linear regression to test WPA against several variables to try to find relationships. I run several models based mainly on some prior studies that suggests relationships with high leverage performance and other variables. Before I go into the models, I feel I need to talk a little more about the data.

More about the data:

I wanted to have a large sample size of recent data so I use a reference period of 10 years, encompassing the 2007-2017 seasons. I use position players with at least 200 PAs for each year that they appear in the data, which seems to allow me to capture other players with significant playing time besides just starters. This also gives me a fairly normal distribution of the data. The summary statistics are shown below.

There aren’t really abnormalities in the data to discuss. I find the standard deviations of the variables to be especially interesting, which will help me with my analysis. All in all, I get a fairly normal distribution of data, which is what I am going for. The only problems I found with observations swaying far from the mean were with ISO and wOBA. To account for this, I square both the variables, which I found produces the most normal adjustment of any transformation. The squared wOBA and ISO variables is what I will be using in the models.

I use multiple regression and probability techniques to try to shed light on the relationship between strikeouts and high leverage performance. First I use an OLS linear regression model with a few different specifications. These specifications can be found below.

For the first equation, I find that wOBA, BB% and K% all have statistically significant relationships with WPA at the one percent level. I know that is not exactly ground breaking, but we can get a better idea of the magnitudes of the relationship. The results of the first regression are below.

I find that these three variables alone account for about 60% of the variance in WPA. Per the model, we find that a one percentage point increase in K% corresponds to about a 1.14 percentage point decrease in WPA. Upping your walk rate one percent has a greater effect in the other direction, corresponding to about a 5-percentage point increase in WPA. Also per the model, we find that a one percentage point increase in the square root of wOBA corresponds to about a 35.50 percentage point increase in WPA. These interpretations, however, are tricky, and do not really mean much. Since WPA usually runs from about a -3 to +6 scale, looking at percentage point increases does not really tell us anything tangible, but it does give a sense of magnitude.

To account for this, I convert the measurement weights into changes by standard deviation to help us compare apples-to-apples on a level field. The betas of the variables shown below.

We see that wOBA not surprisingly has the greatest effect on WPA while K% has the smallest. All else equal, a one standard deviation increase in K% corresponds with just a -0.04 standard deviation decrease in WPA. A one standard deviation increase in BB% has more an upward effect on WPA than K% does a downward one, albeit by not much. Though the standard deviations for these variables are not very big, so the movement increments will be small. Nevertheless, we still see level comparisons across the variables in terms of magnitude.

We go back to the fact that good hitters still sometimes strike out a good portion of the time. We like to think that strikeout hitters are also just power hitters, but Mike Trout was not that when he won his MVP while striking out more than anyone in the league. Not completely gone are the days where the only ones who were allowed to strike out were the ones who hit 40+ round trippers a year. I’m not necessary trying to argue one way or another, but getting comfortable with high strikeout yet productive players could take some getting used to. We value pitchers who can rack up high numbers of strikeouts because it eliminates the variance in batted balls, but comparing high K pitchers and high K batters is not exactly the same. Simply putting the ball in play is not quite enough in the MLB when you’re a hitter, but eliminating the batted ball variance through strikeouts is important for pitchers.

Speaking of batted ball variance, we can account for that in the models. I add ISO, hard hit ball%, GB% and FB%. I would have liked to add launch angle to the sample but I do not have the time to match the data right now, but that would likely improve the sample. I do my best and account for exit velocity with Hard%. I do not account for Soft% or Med% because some preliminary tests showed no statistical significance. Same goes for LD%, which was a bit surprising. I am mainly looking for how K% changes while controlling for these new variables, and if I can get any better account for the variance in the model.

When controlling for the new variables, the magnitude of the K% shows a stronger negative relationship. We find that despite some other popular belief, ground balls seem to be negatively correlated with WPA, but not as much as fly balls. wOBA and BB% show the strongest positive relationship with WPA. Hard% shows a positive relationship with WPA but is only significant at the 10% level. This model accounts for about 65% of the variation in WPA.

Batted ball profiling for WPA is still a little tricky. Running F-tests for significance on GB and FB, I find that indeed both of them together are significant in the model. However, when controlling for season to season variance, GB and FB percentages are not significant and don’t help the model. I think it’s likely the case that extreme fly ball hitters, all else equal, will not be as strong in high leverage situations.  Kris Bryant seems to fit the profile of a guy who constantly puts the ball in the air yet struggled in high leverage spots last year. On the opposite end of the spectrum, extreme ground ball hitters were not WPA magicians either. It is likely that when looking at the entire sample, FB and GB rates play a part, but when looking at an individual season level, the variance in these rates doesn’t really tell us much.

The explanation may be as simple as that MLB fielders are good. Yes, batted ball variance is very real, but simply making contact, all else equal, does not much change your ability at adding to your team’s chances at winning as striking out. Do not get me wrong, putting a ball in play is always better, but the simple fact of putting the ball in play in itself is not much more helpful. In addition, striking out a lot could suggest mechanical issues with a player’s swing, timing issues etc, though I do not believe it should be a blanket generalization. Mike Trout (I like mentioning Trout, but there are many more who fit this profile) may strike out a lot (not so much anymore) but he also has a great controlled swing where he hits the ball at optimal launch/speed angles, making him good at performing in high leverage situations.

Perhaps the shift has hurt the ability of extreme pull hitters to produce enough to the point where it hurts their WPA. A better idea would probably be to look at platoon splits to see if extreme pull lefties are hurt more than extreme pull righties, since lefties get shifted on much more often. The next explanation is more of an opinion gathered from my playing days and could easily be debated, but the ability to use the whole field is a sign of a better well-rounded hitter. Being an extreme pull hitter often means you lock yourself in to one approach, one swing, and one pitch. But again, I have no statistical evidence to back that up, but that is what I have gathered while being on the field. I think it is good to sometimes throw the eye test into statistical analysis to keep the study grounded.

It seems that performance in high leverage situations is more a mentality and ability to adjust approaches given the situation. The overall conclusion I gather is that K% is detrimental to one’s ability to perform in high leverage situations, but not by much. There are good hitters who strike out a bit, but those good hitters are still good hitters, as demonstrated but the strong relationship between stats like wOBA and WPA. Yes, Aaron Judge struck out a lot last season and had a big dip in relative performance in high leverage situations as seen by his Clutch metric, but all 29 other teams wish they had him. However, even when looking at BB/K rate, the leaders at the very top also show the highest WPAs, but the other leaders beyond that do not follow suit.

To see a more visual relationship between K% and WPA, below is a scatter plot comparing the two metrics with a line of best fit.

Looking a scatter plot of WPA vs. K%, we can see a slight downward relationship with WPA, but the data is mostly scattered around the means, helping confirm my aforementioned conclusion. We can see that there are not as many high K guys with high WPAs as there are high K guys with lower WPAs, but that doesn’t really tell us much because there are obviously going to be more average and below average players than above average. I’ll let you guess the player who had an over 30% K rate yet had a WPA of well over 5.

I know the matrix graph is a little overwhelming, but we can see that K% does not show much of a strong visual relationship with anything. We see a slight upward tick in the slope of measuring K and ISO together, but still predominantly scattered around the means. We also see a slight downward tick in the slope of GB% and K%. Besides the obvious strong relationship with wOBA and WPA, BB% does indeed show positive visual relationship with WPA. The fact that ISO shows a relationship with both K and WPA is interesting. Perhaps ISO helps explain the quality of batted ball variance that I have been trying to capture. The 2s after wOBA and ISO indicate their squared variables.

It seems that no one trait makes a hitter good in high leverage situations or not. Exceptionally well-rounded hitters, such as Joey Votto and Mike Trout, seem to constantly be ahead of everyone else in high leverage situations. Even still, they are not the same types of hitters exactly, though both walk a lot and make quality contact with the baseball. I believe that performance in high leverage situations is a mentality and the ability to keep a solid approach in the face of pressure. Using the Clutch metric itself is probably better when looking at how batters deal with pressure, but players know what is high leverage and what is not and respond accordingly.

Interestingly enough, though I won’t go into much detail here, I took O-Swing and Z-Swing rates and measured them both independently against WPA as well as with the full model. What I found was that O-Swing’s effect on WPA is statistically significant from zero while Z-Swing’s is not. O-Swing% of course showed a negative relationship with WPA. Disciplined batters who have the ability not to chase pitches, thereby recognizing good ones, indeed are poised to do better in big spots (if that is not stating the obvious). I don’t think anyone will pinpoint the exact qualities of a good situational hitter. The best pure hitters will have the edge on WPA, even if they are prone to striking out.