Article: Can Matt Chapman Unlock His Offensive Upside Again By Changing His Approach?

[Matthew Trueblood]

If the Cubs aren't going to land Shohei Ohtani or Yoshinobu Yamamoto, they need to find another way to add an excellent player to the top of their roster. One of the increasingly obvious options is a fraught one. Let's explore it.

Image courtesy of © Nick Turchiaro-USA TODAY Sports

It's hard not to see the match between the Cubs' roster construction and free-agent third baseman Matt Chapman. Last winter, faced with a market that priced them out of the elite offense they had wanted to build, the team pivoted and tried to win by assembling an elite defense, instead. Dansby Swanson and Nico Hoerner each won Gold Glove Awards this past season, and in 2024, the organization hopes to install Pete Crow-Armstrong as the regular center fielder.

Chapman would be a hand-in-glove fit for that approach. Although Nick Madrigal proved to be a defensive whiz at the hot corner in his own right, he's not a third baseman, really. He can't be. He doesn't hit enough, and his arm isn't strong enough. With two Fielding Bible Awards as the best third baseman in baseball and plenty of seasons as one of the two or three best, Chapman is on another level. He'll turn 31 in April, but he should age fine, defensively. He's built for the spot, and there's nothing about the position at which he's less than excellent.

The questions, of course, are about his bat and his price tag. Though he's a .240/.329/.461 career hitter and has occasionally looked like a superstar slugger in the mold of fellow defensive ace Nolan Arenado, he's been badly inconsistent over the last few years, and his power dried up in an ugly way in 2023. In particular, despite relatively even career platoon splits (identical isolated power, very similar walk and strikeout rates), Chapman has struck out about 30 percent of the time against right-handed pitchers over the last three years. He's limited by that vulnerability, in a way he wasn't obviously limited before.

One thing no one questions is the quality of Chapman's contact. Few hitters hit the ball hard as regularly as Chapman does, and he gets the ball in the air at a high rate, too. In fact, only hitting 17 homers in 2023 was a somewhat stunning shortfall, relative to the production one should expect based on the way he attacks pitches.

In part, that problem stems from Chapman not pulling the ball all that much, especially in the air. Hitting long fly balls is great, but doing so to center field and the other way is less valuable, on average, than pulling it.

It's clear that Chapman has the swing talent to generate huge power and/or a high batting average on balls in play. Maybe the issue we need to tackle is one of approach. Could changing the level of Chapman's selective aggressiveness help him get fuller value from that talent?

Last month at Baseball Prospectus, Robert Orr came up with a brilliant, more nuanced way to measure the quality of players' approaches at the plate. Dubbed SEAGER, in honor of its exemplar, the model improves upon the simple question of whether a hitter differentiates between balls and strikes with their swing rates. It punishes hitters who let hittable pitches go by, especially in certain counts, and it more subtly but more accurately rewards hitters who show smart selectivity.

Chapman is one of the best hitters in baseball at simply swinging a lot in the zone and laying off pitches outside it. By SEAGER's reckoning, though, he's not quite as good at balancing the twin mandates of hitting as his in- and out-of-zone swing rates would imply. Maybe Chapman is, in part, leaving damage on the table by watching too many strikes go by.

Taking a patient approach at the plate, which is a major focus for Chapman, requires one to let the ball travel a bit. That's why, by and large, more patient hitters tend to use the opposite field more. It's an extreme not quite in evidence here, but recall Joe Mauer and the way teams would wheel around toward left field against him, because he was so reluctant to swing at bad pitches that even good swings usually just pushed the ball into left field.

Once one gets used to letting the ball get deep and hitting to the big part of the field, one also starts tending to swing more often at pitches on the outer part of the plate. That was true of Chapman in 2023.

With all the bat speed and leverage in his swing, though, using the big part of the field and attacking the ball on the outer third isn't actually the optimal way to hit. Chapman does better not on all those pitches he looks for over the outer half, but when he can cleanly turn on the inside offering.

So, the picture is coming into focus. Chapman is covering the strike zone as well as he can, given his relatively high baseline whiff rates, and he draws plenty of walks and he hits the horsefeathers out of the ball. What he's not doing is honing in correctly on the pitches he can best handle. His bat path is unfriendly, especially, to hitting the ball against right-handed pitchers when they locate up in the zone or out away from him, and he's not being aggressive enough on the inner half to avoid needing to cover the outer half.

Alas, all of this good information falls somewhere short of answering our vital questions. We can diagnose Chapman's problems, but to what extent any of them are tractable (or whether the Cubs are the right team to help him make the needed adjustments, if they're possible) is very hard to say. It seems like new approaches could be available. It seems like Chapman could pull the ball more without too many of those pulled balls being on the ground. It seems like he could clear the left-field wall at Wrigley Field 30-plus times a year. Double alas: things are not always as they seem.

Chapman's defense sets a high short-term floor for his value, but his ceiling is unclear. How much would you be willing to pay to slot him in alongside Swanson and Hoerner? Would Chapman be an adequate primary addition this winter? Let's break it down.

View full article

[Jason Ross]

I think Matt Chapman is a perfect example of "Good player, Wrong Player" for the Cubs. There's a team out there that needs a glove-over-bat projected infielder for the next few years, but the Cubs aren't that team, with Hoerner and Swanson already locked in over the next few seasons, both of whom project as glove-over-bat types. Even with funky data last year that I can't entirely make heads or tails of, Chapman has been a 110 wRC+ over his last 1,800 PAs. What the Cubs lack are upside bats that provide run creation opportunities. With the previous infielders already mentioned, with Happ and Suzuki locked in, without an obvious plus-hitting catcher, and with PCA who's bat is a bit iffier than his glove, the Cubs just don't have a ton of opportunities on the team to add that kind of bat...third base remains one of the few chances they have. There may be opportunities for the Cubs to make an approach change to switch that projection, but that seems like a pretty hefty bet for someone with as much data as Chapman already has. I'd rather the Cubs not try to sign a Chapman to a six year deal hoping they can make him into a hitter that fits their needs, instead, just finding someone who already does.

And so, while I think Chapman provides value, he doesn't provide the diversification the Cubs need. A different infield and a different offensive team and he'd make a ton of sense. For this team, I'd much prefer if someone else signed him for the next six years.

Edited December 7, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[Bertz]

Brett Taylor mentioned this on Twitter this morning but the like baseball version of the Overton window is way out of whack on Chapman.  I don't really want him at the cost he's going to require, but he's still a really good player at a position where we ideally could use one.  We bemoan that Madrigal had the glove for 3B but not the bat while Wisdom has the bat but no longer the glove.  Chapman is more or less those two guys Frankensteined together.

I tend to think Jed won't go for Chapman though.  He has a pretty clear reticence to sign QO guys, and with Chapman's warts I don't think he's going to be one of the exceptions.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just now, 1908_Cubs said:

I think Matt Chapman is a perfect example of "Good player, Wrong Player" for the Cubs. There's a team out there that needs a glove-over-bat projected infielder for the next few years, but the Cubs aren't that team, with Hoerner and Swanson already locked in over the next few seasons, both of whom project as glove-over-bat types. Even with funky data last year that I can't entirely make heads or tails of, Chapman has been a 110 wRC+ over his last 1,800 PAs. What the Cubs lack are upside bats that provide run creation opportunities. And while I think Chapman provides value, he doesn't provide the diversification the Cubs need. A different infield and a different offensive team and he'd make a ton of sense. For this team, I'd much prefer if someone else signed him for the next six years.

The QO is the other thing that dulls my enthusiasm a bit.  I could definitely see a situation where his market struggles to materialize and he makes sense as part of a contingency plan if you miss out on other targets.  In some ways I kinda prefer him to Bellinger in that 'I have too much money to spend in late January' type of situation.  But the redundancy of his profile on top of the lost QO resources(and let's face it, probably his likely contract terms) keep me from mustering much excitement even if my contrarian voice tells me the wailing and moaning about him as a target is overwrought.

 

That said, I was worried Swanson was going to be Jeff Blauser redux in terms of Braves SS falling short of FA hype with the Cubs and that didn't come to fruition at all, so maybe I have a blind spot for these defense-carrying hitters who can hit a bit.

[Jason Ross]

4 minutes ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

The QO is the other thing that dulls my enthusiasm a bit.  I could definitely see a situation where his market struggles to materialize and he makes sense as part of a contingency plan if you miss out on other targets.  In some ways I kinda prefer him to Bellinger in that 'I have too much money to spend in late January' type of situation.  But the redundancy of his profile on top of the lost QO resources(and let's face it, probably his likely contract terms) keep me from mustering much excitement even if my contrarian voice tells me the wailing and moaning about him as a target is overwrought.

 

That said, I was worried Swanson was going to be Jeff Blauser redux in terms of Braves SS falling short of FA hype with the Cubs and that didn't come to fruition at all, so maybe I have a blind spot for these defense-carrying hitters who can hit a bit.

Not that this is necessarily the article for it, but I still have some concerns long term with Swanson, and I think he's kind of a good comparison to Chapman. They have some of similarities in profiles (though not really 1:1 across the board). I've at least come around to the idea that Swanson may continue to be a useful player longer into his contract than I had originally considered (and give him credit for the nice overall season last year), but I'd prefer if the Cubs stayed away from an entire left side of the infield with similar long term bat questions and value hinging on defense. 

With that said, I share similar concerns with Bellinger as you. I'm kind of at the point where I'd prefer the Cubs to either make a trade for a hitter or just sign two from the Hoskins/Belt range. I'm concerned with the amount of turnover this is yet again going to create next year but I think I'd rather deal with roster churn over being saddled with middling bats for 3-4 seasons, as well.

Edited December 7, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[CubinNY]

38 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Not that this is necessarily the article for it, but I still have some concerns long term with Swanson, and I think he's kind of a good comparison to Chapman. They have some of similarities in profiles (though not really 1:1 across the board). I've at least come around to the idea that Swanson may continue to be a useful player longer into his contract than I had originally considered (and give him credit for the nice overall season last year), but I'd prefer if the Cubs stayed away from an entire left side of the infield with similar long term bat questions and value hinging on defense. 

With that said, I share similar concerns with Bellinger as you. I'm kind of at the point where I'd prefer the Cubs to either make a trade for a hitter or just sign two from the Hoskins/Belt range. I'm concerned with the amount of turnover this is yet again going to create next year but I think I'd rather deal with roster churn over being saddled with middling bats for 3-4 seasons, as well.

The Cubs must see something in Mervis that makes them think he's not going to cut it, but I'd rather they give him an honest shot at least for half a season and see what is available at the trade deadline if he falls on his face. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by CubinNY

[We Got The Whole 9]

This dude flat horsefeathers sucked for 4/6 months last year. One of the weirdest set of splits that I have ever seen. 4 months of hitting no better than 202 with a high OBP of 277 and the other 2 months he posted an OBP over 400 with the obvious misnomer of what occurred in April, propped up by a near 500 BABIP. 

 

I'd stay away. I really think reporters are trying to make the easy connection but he doesn't fit Jed's MO and I don't think he's gonna get the 6/120 people have speculated. 

[Tryptamine]

You don't pay a guy 100M+ knowing that you're going to have to mess with his swing.

[We Got The Whole 9]

6 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

You don't pay a guy 100M+ knowing that you're going to have to mess with his swing.

Even if that guy has a legendary speech up his sleeve in times of trouble?

[Matthew Trueblood]

7 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

You don't pay a guy 100M+ knowing that you're going to have to mess with his swing.

Do they have to mess with his swing? Or just where and how much he swings? I think the distinction matters. But I get what you mean.

[Stratos]

He'll be 31.  If he were a year or 2 younger you could look at signing him. 

Fangraphs crowd-sourcing has him at 4/80, and they've been fairly accurate so far.

[Jason Ross]

6 hours ago, Stratos said:

He'll be 31.  If he were a year or 2 younger you could look at signing him. 

Fangraphs crowd-sourcing has him at 4/80, and they've been fairly accurate so far.

Have they been? The first is their actual deal vs the crowd-sourced predictions. It should be noted that the AAV in the crowd sourcing doesn't always match up with the contract value because the crowd sourcing isn't dealing in whole numbers for years. For example, Gray's AAV is $21.4m crowd sourced because the average years is 3.24 and not a nice, round, 3.

Sonny Gray - 3/$75m ($25m aav) + option year for 1/$30m vs 3/$69m ($21.4m AAV)

Jemier Candelrio: 3/$45m ($15m AAV) vs 3/$36.6m ($12.4m AAV)

Eduardo Rodriguez: 4/$80m ($20m AAV) vs 4/$80m ($20m AAV)

Aaron Nola: 7/$172 ($24.5m AAV) vs 5/$125m ($25m AAV)

Shohei Ohanti - ??? vs 10/$450m

Yoshi Yamamoto - ??? vs 7/$172m 

Jordan Montomgery - ??? vs  4/$100m 

Shoto Imanaga - ??? vs 4/$70m (reportedly already has deals over $100m)

Just looking across the board, average crowd sourcing seems to be doing far better on the lower-end of the market (where there's inherently less variance. No one is blowing the doors off of Nick Martinez or Emilio Pagan, for example). Where they seem to be low is on the top end of the market, and pretty consistently by at least a decent margin. Sonny Gray may not feel drastically different at $75m vs $69, but 3.5m AAV isn't a nothing number (and his $25m AAV is closer to Clemons $26m). Same for Candelario. They're way off on Ohtani, Yamamoto, Imanaga, and Montgomery from the looks of it. Ben Clemens is much higher on all them and even he's likely low on all of them. Considering there is just not a premium amount of bats behind Ohtani, it's very likely that Chapman goes for much closer to Ben Clemens 5/$120m projection than the crowd sourced 4/$80m. 

If the Cubs could get Chapman on 4/$80m, that'd be a near steal. He's easily going to match that contract on value, QO attached or not. Which is also why he's not going to come in that low.

Edited December 8, 2023 by 1908_Cubs

[CubUgly]

On 12/7/2023 at 2:02 PM, 1908_Cubs said:

 There may be opportunities for the Cubs to make an approach change to switch that projection, but that seems like a pretty hefty bet for someone with as much data as Chapman already has. I'd rather the Cubs not try to sign a Chapman to a six year deal hoping they can make him into a hitter that fits their needs, instead, just finding someone who already does.

 

Agreed 1908.  The bat was never daunting but at least he provided power, but last year even that trended down pretty significantly making me think he's seen his best years at the plate and things are probably trending downward.   And a 6 year deal....I just can't see that being a good thing.