The Biggest Hypothetical Losers of a Raised Strike Zone

Jordan Zimmermann woke up Tuesday morning, read the report from the Associated Press that MLB appears to be considering a raising of the strike zone, yawned, took another sip of coffee, and quietly went back to working on the day’s crossword puzzle from The New York Times.

According to the AP’s interview with commissioner Rob Manfred, MLB is “studying whether to raise the bottom of the strike zone from the hollow beneath the kneecap back to the top of the kneecap.” We know that offense is as low as it’s been in 25 years with strikeouts at an all-time high, and while that’s partially due to ever-increasing velocity and changes in approach, it’s also got plenty to do with a strike zone that’s larger than any we’ve got on record, with the brunt of the expansion found in the lowest sliver of the zone. MLB can’t change how hard pitchers throw or where they put it, so the logical step, if they’d like to inject some offense back into the game (though it did come back up for the first time in six years last season), would be to rein in the strike zone a bit. If a change is made, it likely wouldn’t come until the 2017 season at the earliest, as it’s a matter to be discussed in collective bargaining negotiations, the results of which wouldn’t impact the league until the current CBA expires on December 1, 2016.

Raising the floor of the strike zone wouldn’t much affect Zimmermann, who pitched above the waist more than any pitcher in baseball last year. But certain guys make their living down in the zone, around the very sliver that’s being discussed as turning from a called strike to a called ball.

Let’s first refresh our memory of the matter at hand by referring back to a pair of graphics, published in one of Jon Roegele‘s many excellent studies regarding the expanding strike zone:

LHH-2009-2014-w-title-650x364 RHH-2009-2014-w-title-650x364

Pictured on the left of each image is the strike zone, as it was called in 2009. On the right, the strike zone as it was called in 2014. While the outside zone against left-handed batters has shrunk since 2009, the bottom of the zone against both lefties and righties has grown substantially, and that’s what’s currently being viewed as the problem area.

Were a change to be made, it’s unclear precisely what it might be; no specifics were mentioned in the AP report. But I’d think it’s reasonable to assume they’d be aiming to get back to something like the 2009 standard. At least, that’s the assumption under which we’ll be operating for the remainder of this post.

So, what we’re looking at here is a section of the zone, between 1.5 feet and about 1.75 feet above the dirt, in which pitchers didn’t used to get called strikes, but where they are getting called strikes, now. For some pitchers, this is an area which they’ve been targeting their whole lives. Others have tailored their approach to take advantage of the expanded zone. Any change made by MLB wouldn’t be targeting specific players, but it would affect certain players more than others. Who might those guys be, and what might be the magnitude of a shift?

Using BaseballSavant‘s advanced PITCHf/x search, we can identify the pitchers who most targeted the sliver of the zone between 1.5 and 1.75 feet off the ground. What follows are the 20 pitchers who attacked this part of the zone at a rate that was more than one standard deviation above league average:

Highest Pitch % in Target Area, 2015
Player Total Pitches > 1.5 < 1.75 > 1.5 < 1.75 %
Alex Wood 2907 346 11.9%
Kyle Gibson 3235 364 11.3%
Wade Miley 3194 351 11.0%
Mike Leake 2754 302 11.0%
Kyle Hendricks 2793 300 10.7%
Francisco Liriano 3021 317 10.5%
Jon Lester 3208 336 10.5%
Carlos Carrasco 2777 290 10.4%
Jeremy Hellickson 2478 257 10.4%
Carlos Rodon 2441 252 10.3%
Chris Heston 2791 288 10.3%
Kyle Lohse 2540 258 10.2%
Dallas Keuchel 3492 354 10.1%
Rubby de la Rosa 3012 303 10.1%
Masahiro Tanaka 2290 230 10.0%
Tommy Milone 2067 206 10.0%
Erasmo Ramirez 2406 239 9.9%
Jon Niese 2701 268 9.9%
CC Sabathia 2702 268 9.9%
Anthony DeSclafani 2912 288 9.9%
SOURCE: PITCHf/x

It’s an even split of lefties and righties, and the table is populated by plenty of sinkerballers. By a raw count, it’s Gibson, Keuchel, and Miley who threw the highest number of pitches in the specified zone, but Wood who actually lived there the most.

But, while this gets us close to what we want to know, it doesn’t quite get us all the way there. Not every pitch in this zone is made the same. Some guys are trying to work outside the zone when they pitch low, others inside. Some guys work there in different counts. Some pitch low to contact, others pitch low to whiffs. The guys who would hypothetically be most affected by a change are the ones who rely on this area of the zone for called strikes.

Another table, this time showing the leaders of called strikes on pitches 1.75 feet off the ground or lower:

Highest Called Strike % in Target Area, 2015
Player Total Pitches CS < 1.75 CS < 1.75 % kL < 1.75
Kyle Hendricks 2793 119 4.3% 10
J.A. Happ 2839 118 4.2% 17
Jon Niese 2701 103 3.8% 9
Dallas Keuchel 3492 130 3.7% 13
Wade Miley 3194 116 3.6% 14
Gio Gonzalez 2966 106 3.6% 9
Kyle Lohse 2540 90 3.5% 12
Mike Leake 2754 97 3.5% 4
Francisco Liriano 3021 106 3.5% 6
Jesse Chavez 2572 90 3.5% 13
C.J. Wilson 2117 74 3.5% 11
Adam Warren 2159 74 3.4% 11
John Danks 2918 100 3.4% 5
Taylor Jungmann 2045 70 3.4% 5
CC Sabathia 2702 92 3.4% 6
Jon Lester 3208 109 3.4% 19
Jose Quintana 3373 114 3.4% 7
Ian Kennedy 2907 98 3.4% 9
Chase Anderson 2459 81 3.3% 9
SOURCE: PITCHf/x
kL = Number of called third strikes in target area

The samples are smaller, and surely there’s noise in the data, but you see plenty of repeats and we see who our big losers could be. The names aren’t too surprising: Hendricks, Niese, Keuchel, Miley, Lohse, Leake, Liriano. These guys pounded the lower part of the strike zone and depended on it for called strikes more than anyone. At the most extreme level, they earned up to 100 called strikes, or more, in a zone that was called a ball as recently as 2009.

This is a very complex subject. It wouldn’t be nearly as simple as turning all of the called strikes into balls and calling it a day. Framing changes the math, and so do the human elements of the umpires, and batters who have changed their approach in the last five years and would have to do so again, if a change were to be made. Pitchers would have to make subtle tweaks to their approaches too, especially the ones listed in the tables above. All of this considered, and certainly more, we’ve no idea how many of these called strikes pitchers would actually lose.

But let’s use Keuchel as an example, and look at a possible range of over-simplified outcomes. Last year, Keuchel got a league-high 130 called strikes in the target area. The run value of the difference between a ball and a called strike is something like 0.128 runs per pitch, and that might be on the conservative side. If we turned all 130 of Keuchel’s called strikes into balls, that’s more than 16 runs, enough to hypothetically boost last year’s ERA from 2.48 to 3.10. Of course, the actual effect wouldn’t be anywhere near that large. He’d simply throw less of these pitches, and not every pitch in the target area would be called a ball. But even 50% is eight runs, hypothetically moving the ERA from 2.48 to 2.79. At 25%, it goes from 2.48 to 2.64.

A league-average starter had a 4.10 ERA last year, and got something like 66 called strikes in the target area. Performing a similar exercise, which again is admittedly a very rough calculation that accounts for exactly zero outside factors, we find a range of outcomes something like this:

Strikes to Balls Hypothetical ERA
0% 4.10
25% 4.19
50% 4.28
75% 4.37
100% 4.46

When Roegele very thoroughly imagined a redefined strike zone last summer, he concluded, among many other fascinating findings, that a return to the 2009 strike zone would increase a team’s runs per game from 4.07 to 4.27, which matches up well with the median outcome of my simple-minded fool’s table above.

Raising the strike zone, certainly, would inject some offense back into baseball; that’s MLB’s endgame in this endeavor. While it might not come for a couple more years, it will be fascinating to see how our most extreme low-ball pitchers adjust, if and when the change is made, or perhaps even preliminarily, now that the seed’s been planted. If there’s anything we can conclude from Manfred’s inaugural season as commissioner, it’s that he’s nothing if not proactive.



Print This Post



August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
chuckb
Member
chuckb
4 months 3 days ago

MLB needs to do this, but when you’re favorite team missed out on all its preferred free agents, is about to get hammered by MLB, and just gave $80 million to Mike Leake, it’s not exactly the news I was hoping to read today.

chuckb
Member
chuckb
4 months 3 days ago

*your

really not a good day!

tdouglas
Member
tdouglas
4 months 2 days ago

I was thinking the exact same thing. Leake is someone who can’t afford to lose a big advantage like this. If his already-dreadful strikeout rate drops any further, how long can he realistically get major leaguers out?

The Ghost of Johnny Dickshot
Member
The Ghost of Johnny Dickshot
4 months 3 days ago

The MLB strike zone just really grates on me…is there another rule in any sport, that is as crucial to the game, where the rule book definition is just COMPLETELY ignored and every umpire (official) calls it however they see fit? It’s freaking maddening.

novaether
Member
novaether
4 months 3 days ago

What constitutes a catch in the NFL is similar.

formerly matt w
Member
formerly matt w
4 months 3 days ago

Even more so what constitutes a hold.

Paul
Member
Paul
4 months 2 days ago

ALL NFL RULES!

Spudchukar
Member
Spudchukar
4 months 3 days ago

Ever since Little League, pitchers are instructed to keep the ball down. Pitching is built on this axiom. The assumption is that umps are now calling pitches too low. I disagree. I believe umps were missing these calls before. Some of this may in fact be due to better framing. But the strike zone needs to stay the same in the bottom part of the zone. If any part of the ball, even a millimeter of it, clips any part of the lower knee (I am assuming that is defined by the patella bone), as it crosses any part of the plate, then it is a strike, even if the vast majority of the ball crosses the hollow of the knee. MLB needs to do a better job of explaining the low zone, not alter it.

Joser
Member
Joser
4 months 3 days ago

While MLB umpires don’t call the rulebook strike-zone, they do tend to call what other umpires are calling. Rather than every umpire calling it like he sees it, they’re remarkably consistent among themselves; moreover, they’re getting better. (Additional recent perspectives on this here and here.)

Despite the common perception among fans, the situation really does seem better than the NFL, where one day something is irrefutably and obviously catch, yet the seemingly exact same play in another (or even the same!) game is clearly and incontrovertibly incomplete.

jim fetterolf
Member
jim fetterolf
4 months 3 days ago

Traveling in the NBA.

rosen380
Member
rosen380
4 months 3 days ago

Would it be possible to grab the other end of that list… the guys who used the bottom portion of the zone the least [so least affected if this change goes into effect]?

Paul22
Member
Paul22
4 months 2 days ago

So MLB lowered the strike zone by using pitch f/x to judge umpires , and they did that without changing the rules. Why can’t they simply restore the strike zone back to 2009 levels by reinterpreting the existing rule, and start that immediately? And what was with that offensive burst in the 2nd half? The ball or the strike zone. Nothing else can explain it.

I’d also like to see what hitters would benefit from a higher zone. Maybe some of these bad contracts to hitters are bad because the strike zone has kept getting lower as their deal progressed, and vice versa for pitchers who are now first in line for the big money

Famous Mortimer
Member
Member
4 months 2 days ago

Absolutely. Why does it need a CBA to change a rule that never should have been changed?

PecanSandy
Member
PecanSandy
4 months 2 days ago

This is probably a ridiculous question, but since the graphs up above are based on vertical distance from the plate (and not proximity to the horizontal level of the batter’s kneecaps, per the rule), is there anything to the idea that hitter height/batting stances have changed at all? More simply, is it possible that kneecaps are just lower to the plate by the inch or two that would account for these low strikes?

BigChief
Member
Member
BigChief
4 months 2 days ago

Unless Cotton Hill has logged a significant number of plate appearances, I’d think that the average distance between the ground an a players kneecap has been on of the most constant things in baseball from 2009 – 2014

wpDiscuz