Cubs Defense Thread (Historically Good)

[Inlearningmode]

When anything is historically good, it probably deserves a thread of some sort

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/heres-why-the-cubs-are-on-pace-to-be-the-single-best-defensive-team-ever/

[Cubswin11]

NO SEALS ALLOWED

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://i.giphy.com/l4HnTZry9xLQGk3Kg.gif

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/1/6/8/150499168/091915_chc_finalout_medres_p2e48p8a.gif

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LYFcuylqC8U/VcxvaFISCJI/AAAAAAAAeTc/KZIW5aYc5lo/w1200-h630-p-nu/081215_chc_rizzo_catch_med_y9bmr8qk.gif

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://mlb.mlb.com/images/5/7/2/125898572/052115_chc_bryant_barehand_med_412oct5j.gif

[Ding Dong Johnson]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1056628/GarzaThrow4.gif.opt.gif

[chopsx9]

Don't know if anyone has the clip - it was a recent game but I'm not sure which one - where on an attempted steal by the opposing team it seemed like Javy left his feet, angled his body backward to allow the ball to travel on its own as far as possible and caught the ball and applied the tag for the out while still off of his feet. I then recall Bowie and Freddie Mercury descending from the skies and singing a medley of Heroes and We Are The Champions while the girl from that Robin Thicke video held up a sign, that only I could see, with her phone number and address on it while mouthing "I like chubby middle aged men". So I may not be remembering it exactly right so I wouldn't mind seeing the clip again because I thought it was one of the best tags I'd ever seen and I couldn't quite make out the last digit of the phone number. Thanks in advance.

[philosophizer75]

Against the giants he did something like that.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/chicago-cubs-javier-baez-tag-behind-the-back-wizard-whoa-mlb/amp?client=ms-android-att-us

[philosophizer75]

Oh, and against the pirates.

 

http://sportsmockery.com/2016/05/javier-baez-exciting-cubs-player-watch/

[chopsx9]

Against the giants he did something like that.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/ftw.usatoday.com/2016/09/chicago-cubs-javier-baez-tag-behind-the-back-wizard-whoa-mlb/amp?client=ms-android-att-us

 

 

That's the one! Thanks. I guess he's only briefly off the ground but still a hell of a tag. And as it turns out the girl was from an Alan Thicke video so...you know...thank God for instant replay!

[Inlearningmode]

http://www.espn.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=14278

 

If someone could give a summary of the stuff not seen, much obliged

[TruffleShuffle]

this could've gone in the rotation thread too, but...

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/whos-responsible-for-the-cubs-incredible-pitching-stats/

 

Back in June, August Fagerstrom noted that the Cubs’ opponent BABIP, then at .250, was basically the lowest of the past 55 years when adjusted for league average. Back in June, we had not yet completed half the season. Now in September, with the season nearly complete, the Cubs BABIP has risen… all the way to .251, increasing just one measly point. The Cubs are preventing balls in play at a record level.

 

On balls in play there are three principal groups of actors: pitchers, hitters, and defenders. While an individual hitter might have a decent amount of control over whether a batted ball becomes a hit or an out, pitchers face so many different hitters over the course of a season that, for any one pitcher and any one team, the control by the pitcher and defense on batted balls is likely very influential. So how do we break this down?

 

First, let’s back up a step, and note something else the Cubs have been doing at a historic level. Generally speaking, a team’s FIP is going to be fairly close to a team’s ERA. Since World War II, there have been 1,716 team seasons, and all but 108 (6.3%) have produced an ERA and FIP within a half-run of each other; two-thirds of teams, within a quarter-run. The Cubs are one of the biggest outliers we have ever seen.

 

...

 

The Cubs have recorded a historically high LOB% and historically low BABIP. Those two statistics explain most of the difference between FIP and ERA.

 

...

 

All five starters are posting BABIP numbers well below both their career averages and also last season’s figures. There are certain pitchers who might be able to post low BABIPs regularly, but those pitchers are not only rare but also difficult to identify. Over the last 15 years, 142 starters have logged 1,000 innings and only one pitcher, Chris Young, has posted a BABIP below .265, and he is a very rare, very tall, extreme fly-ball pitcher. Of the 10 pitchers who even posted a BABIP under .275, only Clayton Kershaw and Carlos Zambrano were ground-ball pitchers. It’s possible Arrieta might be in that Kershaw-type mold right now, but the rest of the pitchers on the staff have career numbers that don’t match with what is going on this season.

 

...

 

With a few weeks of the season left to go, the Cubs’ UZR is the seventh-highest of the past 15 years, and could go higher before the season is out. In an ideal study, we might regress all of the defensive numbers and get three-season sample sizes, but doing that is still going to confirm that this Cubs defense is a very good group. We might try to avoid taking away credit from pitchers, but the Cubs pitchers are good without giving them extra credit for the work of others. Weak contact and low exit velocities might help make the Cubs good pitchers, especially when it comes to limiting home runs and extra-base hits; however, a lot of pitchers give up weak contact and have low exit velocities, and none of them are beating their FIP quite like the Cubs are. None of them have a defense like the Cubs do, and those players deserve a ton of credit for their share of the work.

[cubfro]

I hate to play devils advocate but, it seems like the stats also point to our pitchers being historically lucky.

[Banedon]

I can't get enough articles about the Cubs defense. Give me more.

[BigSlick]

I hate to play devils advocate but, it seems like the stats also point to our pitchers being historically lucky.

I was gonna offer this. That season BABIP of .251 is so ludicrously out of step with decades of history... are we *that* good on defense and *that* good at getting weak contact? (Perhaps pitchers who induce weak contact synergize exceptionally well with great defenders, both improving each other?)

 

If it was just luck though, and we were that much of an outlier, you would have expected the half season BABIP to start regressing, and it really hasn't, over thousands of batted balls.

 

I dunno.

[David]

I hate to play devils advocate but, it seems like the stats also point to our pitchers being historically lucky.

I was gonna offer this. That season BABIP of .251 is so ludicrously out of step with decades of history... are we *that* good on defense and *that* good at getting weak contact? (Perhaps pitchers who induce weak contact synergize exceptionally well with great defenders, both improving each other?)

 

If it was just luck though, and we were that much of an outlier, you would have expected the half season BABIP to start regressing, and it really hasn't, over thousands of batted balls.

 

I dunno.

 

Being so ludicrously out of step with decades of history would be easier to assign to being so ludicrously talented and well run than to ludicrous luck. Obviously, there's probably some positive variance involved in there, but with that much talent, we are likely to be doing this for a while.

[UMFan83]

I hate to play devils advocate but, it seems like the stats also point to our pitchers being historically lucky.

I was gonna offer this. That season BABIP of .251 is so ludicrously out of step with decades of history... are we *that* good on defense and *that* good at getting weak contact? (Perhaps pitchers who induce weak contact synergize exceptionally well with great defenders, both improving each other?)

 

If it was just luck though, and we were that much of an outlier, you would have expected the half season BABIP to start regressing, and it really hasn't, over thousands of batted balls.

 

I dunno.

 

I think the article proves that its a fairly balanaced mix of luck, ability to force weak contact, great defense, and great pitching. Of course luck is a chunk of that. But I'd guess that if the Cubs had neutral luck or even slightly below average luck they'd still be a top 3 rotation in the league because of those other factors. The luck just brings it into historic status.

 

At least that's my theory after reading the article. I'm sure I do sound like a bit of a hypocrite to Cardinals fans though when I mocked them for their historically fluky numbers last year and now partially defend our even more outlier numbers this year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That was a bit of an unsatisfying look at the pitchers' impact on BABIP suppression. I know there's only so much you can do to *prove* that cause, but the Cubs have given 27% of their total innings this year to starters with elite soft contact percentages, guys who each have had multiple national writers writing about their ability to suppress BABIP with low quality contact. That seems like a potentially huge driver in such a high UZR and defensive efficiency, especially since neither of those starters are elite strikeout artists this year.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

A couple of things about the Cubs' BABIP. As others have said there was not nearly enough written about the Cubs' pitching influencing this. You can't just chalk it up to, "Well, some of it is defense and the rest is luck." We need to go deeper. As others have pointed out, the Cubs pitching staff is pretty great at getting weak contact. They lead the league in soft-hit%. And, this is also important -- and I've talked about it in my articles about Cy Hendricks and in my article about the Cubs and weak contact earlier this year. The Cubs are able to get weak contact on both ground balls and fly balls.

 

The Cubs are a ground ball team, ranking 5th in GB%. That's very good. But ground ball teams usually struggle with balls hit in the air. Balls hit in the air against ground ball pitchers are hit on a lower line, and don't hang in the air as long, giving outfielders less time to get under the ball. Of teams with at least a 46% GB%, here are their ranks in vertical launch angle on all non-ground balls:

 

Cardinals: 30

Rockies: 26

Pirates: 23

Yankees: 25

Cubs: 11

Indians: 20

Blue Jays: 17

Padres: 19

Diamondbacks: 21

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_search?hfPT=&hfZ=&hfGT=R%7C&hfPR=&hfAB=&stadium=&hfBBT=1%7C2%7C3%7C&hfBBL=&hfC=&season=2016&player_type=pitcher&hfOuts=&pitcher_throws=&batter_stands=&start_speed_gt=&start_speed_lt=&perceived_speed_gt=&perceived_speed_lt=&spin_rate_gt=&spin_rate_lt=&exit_velocity_gt=&exit_velocity_lt=&launch_angle_gt=&launch_angle_lt=&distance_gt=&distance_lt=&batted_ball_angle_gt=&batted_ball_angle_lt=&game_date_gt=&game_date_lt=&team=&position=&hfRO=&home_road=&hfInn=&min_pitches=0&min_results=0&group_by=team&sort_col=launch_angle&player_event_sort=start_speed&sort_order=desc&min_abs=0&xba_gt=&xba_lt=&px1=&px2=&pz1=&pz2=&ss_gt=&ss_lt=#results

 

The Cubs have some innate ability to get weak contact on fly balls, despite being a ground-ball team. This is incredibly unusual. And this is absolutely going to help them suppress BABIP.

 

I think BigSlick brings up a couple interesting points, too.

(Perhaps pitchers who induce weak contact synergize exceptionally well with great defenders, both improving each other?)

I don't know how you would prove this or even if it's actually a thing. But it makes some sense. The Cubs' pitchers give their elite defenders better opportunities to make plays. If there are rockets being hit all over the field, your defenders are going to struggle to make plays on them. Sure, if you have good defenders, they are going to make more plays than others will. But, it's essentially taking a probable (or expected) .500 average and turning it into something like a .450 average. But .450 is still bad. I've written about this phenomenon in regards to Addison Russell a few times on here.

 

For instance, look at all balls hit at least 100 mph and at a vertical launch angle between 0°- 9° and a horizontal launch angle between -25°- 0°. (These are the hard, low liners I've written a lot about -- hit into what you would consider the shortstop's "zone."):

https://baseballsavant.mlb.com/statcast_search?hfPT=&hfZ=&hfGT=R%7C&hfPR=&hfAB=&stadium=&hfBBT=&hfBBL=&hfC=&season=2016&player_type=pitcher&hfOuts=&pitcher_throws=&batter_stands=&start_speed_gt=&start_speed_lt=&perceived_speed_gt=&perceived_speed_lt=&spin_rate_gt=&spin_rate_lt=&exit_velocity_gt=100&exit_velocity_lt=&launch_angle_gt=0&launch_angle_lt=9&distance_gt=70&distance_lt=&batted_ball_angle_gt=-25&batted_ball_angle_lt=0&game_date_gt=&game_date_lt=&team=&position=&hfRO=&home_road=&hfInn=&min_pitches=0&min_results=0&group_by=team&sort_col=babip&sort_order=asc&min_abs=0&xba_gt=&xba_lt=&px1=&px2=&pz1=&pz2=#results

 

The Cubs' BABIP on these balls is .389. The next lowest is .511. So, yeah, Addi/Javy have been way better than other shortstops at turning these balls into outs. They are the types of balls that are likely to go for hits, regardless of your defense. And I think Addi's defensive metrics are being held back a little, because he hasn't had the opportunity to make as many plays on these balls. And you get more credit for making tough plays. At the same time, you don't get it held against you very much for not making these plays, because you shouldn't be expected to make those plays.

 

Take Zack Cozart, who is a fine defensive player, ranking in the top ten in DRS and UZR, with 9 runs saved. The Reds have turned these types of batted balls into outs 23 times. The Cubs have turned them into outs 22 times. There's a problem, though. The Reds have given up 55 of these batted balls, to the Cubs' 36. The Reds rank in the top ten in terms of BABIP on these balls. They've done a good job against them defensively. But, they certainly aren't better than the Cubs against these balls. And, as much as I would like to see Addi's defensive numbers go up, I do not want more of these types of balls hit towards him. These batted balls are bad. They do bad things. Seeing more of them would be a bad thing, even if Addi is amazing at stopping them.

 

That's where you start drifting into a weird, uncharted territory. The Cubs are amazing defenders, capable of turning dangerously-hit balls into outs like no other team. Except, they also give up fewer dangerously-hit balls than every other team. And, that's fine. It's easier on our elite defenders because of our elite pitchers. They don't make as many highlight reel plays as they would with worse pitchers in front of them, but we don't want them to do so. We are fine with how it is. Elite contact management and elite defense working together, in tandem. When you are good at every facet of the game, you can't be measured like other teams. You are different. There are a lot of things going on that don't go on with other teams. That's why you are historically great.

 

I also think there might be something to this, from BigSlick:

If it was just luck though, and we were that much of an outlier, you would have expected the half season BABIP to start regressing, and it really hasn't, over thousands of batted balls.

 

The Cardinals were very good at a lot of these things last year, too. But they started out the year on an historic pace and then fell back to the pack some as they regressed as the year went on. The Cubs have been this good, nearly exactly this good, all year. He talks in the article about how he said the Cubs' BABIP would go up, back when it was .250 earlier in the year. And it did... all the way to .251. I'm inclined to believe there might be something to this line of thought from BigSlick. It's impossible to prove. But I think there is something to the fact that the Cubs have just been historically great at it all year. With the Cardinals, you could break their season up into sections and see that, well, they were very good at it for most of the year, but this one little section here at the start looks like an outlier. The Cubs have no outlier. They aren't coasting off of some incredibly fluky and lucky early- or late-season run. They've just been amazing at it... all the time.

[Aaron_Kennelly]

I'd also like to touch on the Cubs being historically great at LOB%.

 

For one, they don't give up base runners or hits... period. They should be great at LOB%. When you don't allow guys to get hits, that means they can't drive in runs either. It's not as crazy as it looks. Of course they are stranding runners: Those runners only got on base because of a fluke. They were lucky to be on base, not unlucky to not score.

 

The driving force behind the LOB number is the Cubs' ability to limit all offensive production. Teams are less likely to get on base when there are no outs when they face the Cubs. And they are also less likely to get on base when runners are on base. Good teams have higher LOB% than bad teams. And this is taking everything into account: the pitching staff being great at non-BABIP things, them being great at suppressing BABIP, the defense, all of it. Teams are hitting .207 against Cubs pitching (the next-lowest team being at .228). Of course teams are going to suck at hitting when guys are on base, too. We should expect the LOB% to be extremely high, because they are historically great at everything... in every scenario. This is the main reason for the historically high LOB%.

 

He talks about the Cardinals from last year in this article:

the Cardinals were getting considerably better results with runners on base — in which situation most teams actually fare worse.

 

They were considerably better with runners on base. This was the driving force for their LOB%. They weren't really elite at limiting production with runners not on base. Taken as a whole, Cardinals pitching ranked 11th in WHIP last year. They were 7th in batting average against. They were 5th in FIP. 10th in xFIP. 11th in total team defense (DEF). They were a good, maybe very good, pitching staff. But they weren't historically great or anything. They weren't even close to being the best at limiting overall production in the league that year.

 

The Cubs are historically great at limiting all production. Their non-ball-in-play production has been excellent. And they are historically great at suppressing BABIP -- through limiting hard contact and having a historically great defense. This is why they are so good with runners on base. They are historically great at LOB%. They aren't historically lucky. This is an important distinction. The Cardinals were historically lucky last year. Their fluky results with runners on base are why they were historically great. That's not the case with us.

 

The Cubs have probably been a little lucky with runners on base, though. He points out that the opponents have a wOBA of .274 with the bases empty and .276 with runners on against the Cubs. It's close -- nearly identical. Most teams aren't that close. They haven't exactly been historically lucky in this regard, though. More just... a little lucky probably.

 

But, let's look into that a little more, also. Why do teams fare worse with RISP? Well, there are a couple of reasons. For one, some guys struggle to pitch out of the stretch. Michael Pineda and Robbie Ray, for example, have had some troubles with this. It's a big reason why they've performed worse than their FIPs would indicate. Also, if you look at who's hitting with runners on base most often, you wouldn't be shocked to find that middle-of-the-order hitters are batting. Guys at the top of the order get on base more often, so guys in the middle of the order have more RISP opportunities.

 

But, those aren't the main reasons. The biggie is this: Look at who is pitching with RISP. Who is pitching the most -- out of starting pitchers -- for the Giants with runners on? It's not Madison Bumgarner. He's not allowing runners to even get in scoring position. It's Matt Cain and Jake Peavy. The Giants are going to look better with no runners on, because when no runners are on, that means Madison Bumgarner is pitching. And they'll look worse with runners on, because that means Matt Cain is pitching. They don't perform that much worse in these situations, it's just that their shitty pitchers are taking up more of the sample.

 

So, let's look at the Cubs. They've pretty much had the same five guys starting all year, save for a Mike Montgomery start here or there. And all five have limited offensive production at incredible levels. Take our top four starters: They rank 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in batting average against, of all qualified starters in the major leagues. These guys have pitched nearly 55% of our total innings this year. So, if you just randomly pull out a RISP opportunity, you are likely to find a pitcher on the mound who has been one of the five best in the league at limiting hits. That's why we fare nearly the same with runners on base. We always have a great pitcher on the mound with an historically great defense behind them. We don't have a Matt Cain artificially inflating our RISP numbers. Our Matt Cain is Jason Hammel, who ranks 26th in the majors, with a .233 batting average against.

 

So, sure, we've probably been a little lucky. Look no further than Travis Wood somehow turning into Clayton Kershaw whenever the bases are loaded, while being Travis Wood the rest of the time. But, that's only happened like twice this year. The larger reason why we don't give up more hits with RISP is because when we have runners in scoring position, Arrieta, Hendricks, Lester, Lackey, Rondon, Strop, or Chapman are most likely on the mound.

[Inlearningmode]

Great points made by many so far. There seems to be a growing consensus that the historically low BABIP is due to a rare confluence of factors. Thanks, Duke, for breaking down some of the nuance of what has frequently been summarized as "luck". FYI, hadn't seen this article posted, so just including this excerpt here:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-most-extraordinary-team-statistic/#more-232179

 

"1) Cubs, .251 BABIP against

 

z-score: 3.6

 

You presumably knew about this. At least somewhat. People have been trying to investigate it for months. The Cubs just haven’t really allowed hits. Part of the equation has to be the pitching staff collectively avoiding hard contact. Another part is that the Cubs have the league-leading team defense. You understand that the Cubs thrive in this area. But have you really appreciated how insane this is? The Cubs, as a team, have yielded a .251 BABIP. The next-best mark in all of baseball is .284, shared by the Blue Jays and Dodgers. That’s a difference of 33 points! The difference between first and second is bigger than the difference between second and 28th. This isn’t just the most extraordinary team statistic of 2016. It’s the most extraordinary team statistic, by an extraordinary margin. The Cubs own what would be the lowest BABIP allowed in the last 40 years, not counting strike-shortened seasons. And that’s not even adjusting for context. Like, say, how the league-average BABIP in 1978 was .275, instead of this year’s .297.

 

The Cubs allowed a .256 BABIP in April. It was .245 in May, and .257 in June. It was .267 in July, and .254 in August. It’s at .220 — literally .220 — in September. I mean, look, I don’t know. Whatever it is, it just is. The Cubs are amazing. This is where they’ve been most amazing. I’ve genuinely never seen anything like it, and I’m almost certain you haven’t, either."

[David]

Great points made by many so far. There seems to be a growing consensus that the historically low BABIP is due to a rare confluence of factors. Thanks, Duke, for breaking down some of the nuance of what has frequently been summarized as "luck". FYI, hadn't seen this article posted, so just including this excerpt here:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-most-extraordinary-team-statistic/#more-232179

 

"1) Cubs, .251 BABIP against

 

z-score: 3.6

 

You presumably knew about this. At least somewhat. People have been trying to investigate it for months. The Cubs just haven’t really allowed hits. Part of the equation has to be the pitching staff collectively avoiding hard contact. Another part is that the Cubs have the league-leading team defense. You understand that the Cubs thrive in this area. But have you really appreciated how insane this is? The Cubs, as a team, have yielded a .251 BABIP. The next-best mark in all of baseball is .284, shared by the Blue Jays and Dodgers. That’s a difference of 33 points! The difference between first and second is bigger than the difference between second and 28th. This isn’t just the most extraordinary team statistic of 2016. It’s the most extraordinary team statistic, by an extraordinary margin. The Cubs own what would be the lowest BABIP allowed in the last 40 years, not counting strike-shortened seasons. And that’s not even adjusting for context. Like, say, how the league-average BABIP in 1978 was .275, instead of this year’s .297.

 

The Cubs allowed a .256 BABIP in April. It was .245 in May, and .257 in June. It was .267 in July, and .254 in August. It’s at .220 — literally .220 — in September. I mean, look, I don’t know. Whatever it is, it just is. The Cubs are amazing. This is where they’ve been most amazing. I’ve genuinely never seen anything like it, and I’m almost certain you haven’t, either."

 

This article made me very jealous of the Red Sox offense (as it's over twice as good as ours)

 

But I guess second best with one of the best defenses and pitching staffs in history will have to do

[BigSlick]

I both shake my fist at the Red Sox ridiculous BABIP on offense and yet at the same time think the Cubs have a totally sustainable and real BABIP driven by defense and low contact from our pitchers

[Aaron_Kennelly]

Great points made by many so far. There seems to be a growing consensus that the historically low BABIP is due to a rare confluence of factors. Thanks, Duke, for breaking down some of the nuance of what has frequently been summarized as "luck". FYI, hadn't seen this article posted, so just including this excerpt here:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-most-extraordinary-team-statistic/#more-232179

 

"1) Cubs, .251 BABIP against

 

z-score: 3.6

 

You presumably knew about this. At least somewhat. People have been trying to investigate it for months. The Cubs just haven’t really allowed hits. Part of the equation has to be the pitching staff collectively avoiding hard contact. Another part is that the Cubs have the league-leading team defense. You understand that the Cubs thrive in this area. But have you really appreciated how insane this is? The Cubs, as a team, have yielded a .251 BABIP. The next-best mark in all of baseball is .284, shared by the Blue Jays and Dodgers. That’s a difference of 33 points! The difference between first and second is bigger than the difference between second and 28th. This isn’t just the most extraordinary team statistic of 2016. It’s the most extraordinary team statistic, by an extraordinary margin. The Cubs own what would be the lowest BABIP allowed in the last 40 years, not counting strike-shortened seasons. And that’s not even adjusting for context. Like, say, how the league-average BABIP in 1978 was .275, instead of this year’s .297.

 

The Cubs allowed a .256 BABIP in April. It was .245 in May, and .257 in June. It was .267 in July, and .254 in August. It’s at .220 — literally .220 — in September. I mean, look, I don’t know. Whatever it is, it just is. The Cubs are amazing. This is where they’ve been most amazing. I’ve genuinely never seen anything like it, and I’m almost certain you haven’t, either."

 

This article made me very jealous of the Red Sox offense (as it's over twice as good as ours)

 

But I guess second best with one of the best defenses and pitching staffs in history will have to do

 

Meh. I've been pretty pissed about not having as good of an offense, but I'm over it.

 

Also, I'm probably just trying to contort the numbers to rationalize things. But, I don't think the gap is actually too big. For one thing, we have pitchers hitting. That's a biggie.

 

And, speaking of pitchers hitting, we are being held back a little more even, because our pitchers have been so good. Our starters have thrown more innings than any other team's. So they are going to be in games longer and pick up more ABs. And, since our offense is good and guys are constantly on base, we'll cycle through the order faster. And that means even more ABs for our pitchers. Our pitchers have taken 388 PAs -- the most in the league. The Nationals' pitchers are second with 361. The Giants are the only other team with at least 325. The Nationals' pitchers have taken 6.01% of their total PAs, which is the second-highest amount. Ours have taken 6.34%. That's pretty significant.

 

Take out the pitchers' ABs, and it looks a lot closer.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=np&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

 

And I think the Red Sox are getting a big boost by playing in Fenway. Wrigley has been really pitcher-friendly this year. I think we've had a lot more games with the wind blowing in than usual (as was the case last year, too, I believe). And Fenway has been incredibly hitter-friendly this year. We've had, by far, the better offense on the road this year.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=np&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=1&season=2016&month=16&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=9,d

 

I'm not sure if this could be proven, or if anyone's looked into it at all. But I think Fenway is pretty much the perfect place for that team, especially in this environment. They have a bunch of really good hitters. And they have a bunch of righties with line-drive strokes (Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts). Those guys are perfect for pounding the ball off the Green Monster. And I suspect they are getting an extra boost by the rise in power, league-wide, this year. There will be more homers over the Green Monster, if they get enough loft under them. But, with fly balls travelling further, there are going to be a lot more of the lazy fly balls and line drives that are going to come bounding off the Monster instead. I really think this is probably the biggest reason for their crazy offensive numbers and their crazy high BABIP (other than them being, you know, good). Look at their BABIP on the road. Their ISO is a little lower. And their K% is a little higher, but that can be said about most teams on the road. But the big difference is their BABIP. It's .307 on the road, which is perfectly acceptable for a team of good, young, athletic hitters. But, it's .340 at home. That's insane. Fenway and Coors have been off-the-charts this year.