Rangers Hitting Woes: Not What You Think It Is?

Posted on June 15th, 2009 11:02am by Evan Grant
Filed under Baseball, Burning Questions, Texas Rangers

What if I told you that everything you think about the Rangers’ hitting problems is not as it seems? What if I told you that the problem is not the short at-bats; it’s the long ones?

Would that blow your mind?

It blew mine, but the statistics I looked at clearly indicate the Rangers are most dangerous early in at-bats and that the problems mount when pitches pile up in plate appearances. And the biggest problem is that there are far more longish at-bats than there are short ones.

Consider these stats (through Saturday):

• The Rangers lead the AL in batting average on the first pitch at .389.

• In quick at-bats, which take two or fewer pitches, the Rangers are hitting .356, second in the AL to Cleveland (.365).

• The rest of the AL is hitting .327 in one- or two-pitch at-bats, putting the Rangers nearly 30 points above average.

But here is where it gets all tricky: Brief at-bats account for only 30 percent of the Rangers’ plate appearances. The other 70 percent of the time, when they get deeper into counts, they are well below the league average. The Rangers are hitting .222 in at-bats of three or more pitches. The rest of the league: .238. We’re talking about a total of more than 19,000 at-bats, so a 16-point difference is huge.

What’s that say about the hitting approach? It says that either the Rangers aren’t doing a good job of anticipating and/or recognizing pitches or that they panic/get anxious with one or two strikes. Pitch recognition and staying calm are central to hitting instructor Rudy Jaramillo’s philosophy. Right now, the message apparently isn’t getting across. It’s not the short at-bats that need to be abandoned, it’s the long at-bats that need to be improved. These hitters preach that they trust Jaramillo implicitly, which is why Jaramillo is so highly-regarded. If that is indeed the case, it’s time for these hitters to start practicing what Jaramillo preaches. They must improve pitch recognition dramatically to avoid falling too far behind in the count. And they must stop swinging with anxiety later in counts.

As aggressive hitters, they are the league’s best, lashing out hits 36 percent of the time, but that accounts for only 30 percent of their at-bats. If my awful math is right, being great 36 percent of 30 percent of the time (hello, Ron Burgundy), gives them an advantage about 12 percent of the time. Even by baseball’s relatively low percentages for success that is awful.

Now, there are other reasons for working at-bats early in the game – primarily to force the starting pitcher out earlier or to get to him late – but based on their trends, it’s clear the Rangers are more comfortable swinging early (which is when they have a marked advantage, but they’ve still got to address reducing the anxiety they seem to produce within themselves as at-bats go longer).

Here is something else to consider: The Rangers hitters believe that if the starting pitching keeps them in games, they will make a comeback. But, perhaps because they spend so much time swinging early in the count, the statistics suggest they aren’t a very dangerous team late in games. They rank 11th in the AL in OBP after the start of the seventh inning (.302, 12 points above last and 37 points from the middle of the pack). They’ve scored 88 runs in the seventh or later, which ranks 9th in the AL (albeit only one shy of tying for seventh).

Bottom line of this exercise isn’t to suggest the Rangers take more pitches because they are clearly a more dangerous hitting team in short at-bats, but to point out that long at-bats are still going to account for the majority of their at-bats and that the Rangers have significant issues in understanding what to do in those long at-bats. And I’m beginning to think they are swinging early so often out of some inner anxiety about what happens if things get to 1-2 or 2-2 count.

Bookmark and Share
32 Comments to “Rangers Hitting Woes: Not What You Think It Is?”
  • David @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:14 am

    I see your argument, but at the same time this team’s OBP is atrocious. People are complaining about short at bats not because they think they’ll get a hit in later counts, but because in increases your chances at getting a walk as well as getting the opposing bullpen in the game faster.

    Part of your argument that says the Rangers are bad late in the game might have something to do with the fact that they can’t build the pitch count against the starting pitcher. Without building that pitch count, they face the starting pitcher and the best guys in the bullpen.

  • Evan Grant @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:17 am

    @David: My point: They can’t simply work pitchers. It’s not that easy. They’ve got to have better approaches when at-bats go deeper. Simply taking pitches is going to only raise strikeout totals and make them easier to pitch to. It’s not just about taking pitches; it’s about improving their approach as at-bats get longer.

  • Evan Grant @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am

    @David: And, another thing, it’s about them understanding that this aggressive approach has netted them an advantage, what 10-15 percent of the time?

  • ed @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Thanks, Evan.

    By the way, this web site is SO SLOW. What’s with the aspx home page and then php interior pages?

  • Evan Grant @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:23 am

    @ed: You just blew my mind. I’ll have to ask somebody what aspx home page and the php interior pages are first and then get back to you. But I will….

  • jb @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:27 am

    I remember php from college… never tried aspx though.. any longterm effects?

  • Evan Grant @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:32 am

    @jb: Hah. That should have been my line.

  • ed @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Hey Evan,

    As long as you are replying (!) when can we meet at a RoughRiders game?

  • Brett in SD @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:49 am

    I’d be interested to see what percentage of those first two pitches the Rangers so often swing at are fastballs.

    Perhaps the Rangers are simply good fastball hitters, and see a lot of them early in the count, whereas after two pitches into the at bat they start seeing more variety in the pitchers’ offerings.

  • KJ @ June 15th, 2009 at 11:56 am

    You’re absolutely right Evan. I pointed this out a couple weeks back when we were grounding into double plays on 3-0 and 3-1 counts. The simple fact is that it never seems like an advantage when we work the count.

    If you’re up 3-0, you have the ability to take at least two pitches to make the pitcher throw a strike. You don’t have to hit the 3-0 pitch or even the 3-1 pitch.

  • snidely @ June 15th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    hey evan, it’s an interesting analysis, but it seems like it’s pretty flawed. from the data you described, it sounds like they are doing better than the league when they hit the first pitch, though i would be interested to see how their slugging percentage compares to the rest of the league. what that doesn’t show, though, is what their stats look like when they swing at the first pitch compared to the rest of the league. if they are swinging at a lot of first pitches compared to the rest of the league, it’s all very well them getting first pitch base hits more often than the rest of the league, but if they are getting in holes early in the count more often, that would go pretty far towards explaining why they are hitting less well deeper in counts than the rest of the league.

  • Jed E. @ June 15th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Being selective is more important than be patient. We seem to be taking a lot of first pitch fastballs lately. By the time its 2-2 or 3-2 we are flailing away at garbage. If you see a first pitch fastball, drill it.

  • Clint @ June 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    I have a hard time buying this argument. It looks to me that our approach at the plate is basically to guess first-pitch fastball (and therefore swing at it). If we’re right, then we have great stats early in the count. If we’re wrong, then we’re down 0-1 and the at-bat goes downhill from there, contributing to our poor statistics on at-bats with longer counts. This becomes very easy to gameplan against – just throw offspeed early in the count and once you’re ahead, the Ranger hitters are toast.

    This topic has been discussed before, and I just don’t think it’s as simple as looking at the team’s batting average on various counts. That doesn’t incorporate the effect that swinging and missing early in the count has on the at-bats later in the count.

  • David @ June 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    @Evan

    The team is 24th in the Majors in OBP and 11th in the AL. I wasn’t trying to say that just by taking pitches your OBP goes up. I was simply saying that’s why people gripe about the Rangers swinging at first and second pitches.

    The simple fact is that for some reason this lineup is horrible at taking balls and fighting off bad pitches, something that they were very good at with Milton Bradley in the lineup last year.

    I’m not saying that I wish MB was signed to that deal the Cubs gave him by any means, but his approach at the plate was dramatically better than anything we have seen out of the 2009 Ranger lineup.

  • Shon @ June 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Evan, I see your point but in my opinion thas’s too simple. I think you are grouping the problem all together but it really is each individual has different problems. Example, to me Kinsler tries to evelvate everything (hit a HR) and in doing so is now under the pitch too much and just hitting high fly balls. Young swings alot early in the count and makes contact but because it wasn’t in his zone it is a ground ball to second. I am all for hitting early in the count but I wish they would be more selective and look for thier pitch. That is just the first two in the lineup but that is more the problem to me. Such as Cruz has gone back to swinging at the low and outside pitch which is a ball and they will never come into him as long as he does that.

  • Jon @ June 15th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Trying to understand Ranger hitting is the first slippery step on the road to insanity.

    Recall the earlier All-Or-None “AON” article and analysis. Ranger hitting is streaky, impatient, and build around homeruns ie; slugging not hitting.

    Ted Williams didn’t chase pitches outside the strike zone, was patient at the plate, took walks, and when he got finally got his pitch made solid contact which coincidentally generated quite a few homeruns. He epitamized hitting.

    The Rangers are the complete opposite.

    “it’s time for these hitters to start practicing what Jaramillo preaches”

    Let’s cut to the chase – is the beloved Jaramillo perhaps part of the problem?

    Nolan Ryan kicked tail and took names over the pitching; I think he should now do the same about the hitting. Do not know if is a coaching or a player issue, but he needs to step up and address this continual problem.

  • jcAustin @ June 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    I think it’s not longer at bats that are the problem, but a bad 2 strike approach. I bet if you did stats on 3-1 counts you’d find that they do pretty well there. A lot of these young hitters aren’t cutting down on their swing with 2 strikes and are taking huge cuts and striking out.

  • Auditor @ June 15th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    For all, here is a good story with detailed support (1.7 million pitches) about the advantages of a pitcher’s count and a hitter’s count.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/04/22/pitch.counts/index.html

    Like Evan was trying to point out, the first pitch swinging is not as bad as when they are still trying to swing for the fences with an 0-1 or 0-2 count.

  • rob m. @ June 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Evan, be careful with those stats. Every AB has a first pitch. When they put the first pitch in play the are batting .389.

  • Evan Grant @ June 15th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    @Rob M: I believe that’s what I said by citing their first-pitch batting average. But I think your point is they are getting hits on 38.9 percent of the first pitches they put in play, which makes their success rate on the first pitch mess than 38.9 percent. Totally agree and that’s kind of my point.

    The fact is the Rangers are better than the rest of the league when they put the first pitch in play – but the GREAT MAJORITY of at-bats last longer than two pitches. And that’s when the Rangers get into trouble. They don’t necessarily need to stop being aggressive, but they sure better find some answers for making those long at-bats stand up more.

  • rob m. @ June 15th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    EG: Any explanation on how a team can go from 11th to 2nd back to 11th in OBP in 3 years?

  • ernie @ June 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    how many of first pitch swings by the rangers put their hitters behind in the count 0-1? and what is their batting avg after being behind in a count 0-1 to start the at bat?

  • Stu @ June 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    “Pitch recognition and staying calm are central to hitting instructor Rudy Jaramillo’s philosophy.”

    Since when? He is the most overrated coach in the history of ever. This team plays in a launching pad. 4 of the top 14 strike out machines in the AL, 1 in the top 50 in walks.

  • Tsing Sao @ June 15th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    To me the problem right now is:

    a) the sudden drop in production (OBP/AVG/SLG) of the real team catalyst… Ian Kinsler

    b) the lack of a true #4 hitter, Blalock and Cruz are good efforts, but nothing like a huge presence.

    c) the lack on production on the 7th spot, hello Crush!

    d) yes, the absence of Josh

  • rob m. @ June 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Evan, another question. Do the Rangers scout themselves? Do they have someone who watches the team and provides feeedback on tendencies, etc? Or do they just rely on the coaches and players to identify the tendencies and problem areas?

  • Evan Grant @ June 15th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

    @Rob m: Not really. Chalk it up to personnel changes and the ups and downs of various players.

    @Ernie: Great question. The Rangers have had fewer at-bats that began 0-and-1 (1,003) than any team in the league. When they do get down 0-and-1, however, the at-bat is basically over. They hit .210, which ranks last in the AL and their on-base percentage after those starts is .259 (which ranks 13th, five points ahead of Oakland).

  • Kris @ June 15th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

    This does not blow my mind at all because it is not possible to strike out in two pitches, and that is what they do ALOT.

  • Iram01 @ June 15th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Is the trend based on a philosophy that they won’t swing early unless they get exactly what they are looking for? If so, that would explain why the success is so high. Of course, later in the at bat you don’t have that same luxury.

  • Shane @ June 15th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    so basically their 2 strike approach stinks. and why is moving kins down in the order punishment?

  • JustSaying @ June 15th, 2009 at 9:55 pm

    I see two basic problems in the hitting right now:

    Plate discipline…..or lack thereof

    Pitch recognition…….this team seems hopeless in recognizing the slider and having the ability to lay off those horrible bouncing in the dirt pitches…….

    AND ITS UGLY…….

  • JustSaying @ June 15th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    And if Kinsler is going to approach his AB as a power hitter as opposed to a traditional leadoff then he does need to move for his good and the good of the team…..just a recognition that he has evolved into a different type of hitter…….and to also recognize that in Elvis there could be a great replacement for the leadoff spot…..

  • tomckil @ June 16th, 2009 at 2:03 am

    Evan, your statistics just seem to say that some opposing pitchers are stupid enough to challenge Rangers hitters with a first pitch fastball in the strike zone. As several bloggers have asked, “why would anyone ever throw a strike to these guys?”