Last time we demonstrated rather conclusively that the Indians’ offense is largely to blame for our losing ways. We did this by splitting the team into its three main components—rotation, bullpen, and position players—and looking at a stat called Win Probability Added. It turned out (and still does, for the record) that the offense is the sole reason we are a sub-.500 team.
But a few of the commentariat suggested that the work we did merely stated the obvious. Indeed, it would be hard to watch more than a few Tribe games this season without recognizing the rather large, flaccid void in the place where most teams employ a functional lineup. Today I want to explore why the offense has failed to live up to expectations—expectations that any number of Tribe Scribes hyped in the off-season.
Let’s start by looking at some of the batting statistics posted by our “sluggers” so far:
You may remember that wOBA is the best way to evaluate an offensive player’s production, and league average is in the neighborhood of .330. Great. We have two above-average batters out of the 14 who’ve had a plate appearance. (And one of those made the team as a fourth outfielder!) On-base percentage? League average is in the .330 to .335 range. We’re slightly better here, but still only have four regulars with average or above OBPs. Maybe you’re a fan of batting average: we have exactly three guys batting above .240. It isn’t pretty. But most of you knew that already.
In order to understand why the hitters are struggling so much, we’re going to turn to a different set of stats today. wOBA and OBP and batting average do a good job of telling you what a player did after a certain number of at bats, but none of them do a terrific job of telling you how a player approaches his at bats. To do that, we’re going to turn to a few simple indicators.
First, let’s do some background work. This should be obvious and intuitive to most of you guys, but let’s just take a second to demonstrate how much better a batter performs when the count is in his favor. Here’s how all AL batters have performed by the ball-strike count so far this season (Baseball-Reference doesn’t publish wOBA, so we’ll use the traditional slash-stats for this):
Again, this should come as no surprise, but batters perform best when the count is in their favor. Look at the performances when a batter has a 3-0 or a 3-1 count compared to 0-2 and 1-2. The differences are pretty striking: batters with the count in their favor perform two to three times better than those who don’t.
So if we had a metric for determining how much a batter is doing to shift the count in his favor, we might be able to see which Indians (if any) are doing everything they can to put themselves in a position to be successful.
It turns out, there’s a statistic that might help. It’s called “O-Swing%” and it simply measures what percentage of pitches outside of the strikezone a batter swings at. Obviously, you’d like this number to be low. Not only is it more difficult to hit a pitch outside of the strikezone (more on that in a minute), but a batter who’s swinging at balls is essentially turning a ball into a strike, which, according to the chart above, does the pitcher a huge favor.
So here are the current O-Swing% numbers on the Tribe (league average ≈ 25.2%):
Now we’re getting somewhere. The first five on that list are better than average at not swinging at balls out of the strikezone. Let’s break them into subgroups:
And look down to the bottom half of the list. You’ll see some names that were supposed to be major cogs in the lineup this season:
Long story, short? The only players who represent an offensive threat who aren’t chasing an abnormally high number of bad pitches are Choo and Kearns. Did I mention they’re our only two hitters performing at an above average level? Think there might be a connection?
Before we go, let’s look at two more of these “plate discipline” stats. O-Contact% is exactly what you’d think: it measures the rate at which a player makes contact (i.e. doesn’t swing and miss) when he swings at a pitch out of the strikezone. Z-Contact% is the same calculation for pitches in the strikezone. “Zone” is simple the percent of pitches a batter sees that are in the strikezone.
What do I take from this? Well, a few things.
First, it should be obvious, but here’s the evidence that you’re more likely to hit a pitch in the strikezone than out of it: every batter’s Z-Contact% is higher than his O-Contact%.
Second, Russell Branyan can only be as productive as he is disciplined. When he swings at balls, he misses more than half the time. When he swings at strikes, 80% of the time he makes contact. STOP SWINGING AT BAD PITCHES, RUSTY! (The same could be said for Sizemore; I just like writing the word “RUSTY”.)
But most importantly, look at those Zone% figures. Imagine you are taking the mound to face this lineup. Based on their collective propensity to swing at bad pitches, why would you bother throwing them strikes? Sure enough, only two regular players have seen more than 50% of their pitches in the strikezone. The first is Sweet Lou Marson. The question for him is why you would bother throwing him balls? He doesn’t swing at them and it’s not like he’s going to do a lot of damage if you throw him a meat-pitch anyway. The other is Austin Kearns, who manages the strikezone as well as anybody on the team. And he produces about half of our offense. It’s not a coincidence.
The moral of the story? You get the pitches you deserve. So long as Branyan, Sizemore, Hafner and Peralta keep swinging at pitches out of the strikezone, pitchers would have tp be crazy to throw them strikes. If they start approaching their at bats with some selectivity? Hey, they might just see some pitches to hit.
See you next time!