Article: Two of a Dying Breed, Nick Madrigal and Nico Hoerner Don't Fit in the Same Lineup

[Matthew Trueblood]

The moment the Cubs consummated their 2021 trade with the White Sox--the one that sent Craig Kimbrel to the South Side and netted the Cubs two big-leaugers under long-term team control--a countdown clock started ticking. It's coming right up on 0:00 now.

Image courtesy of © Matt Marton-USA TODAY Sports

To those who have closely watched the evolution of baseball over the last quarter-century, it was immediately clear that Nick Madrigal and Nico Hoerner couldn't last long in a lineup together, at least for a team with aspirations of winning enough games to reach the postseason. Even as Hoerner made impressive defensive strides at shortstop in 2022, it was hard to deny that his long-term defensive home was at either second or third base. Meanwhile, the lilliputian Madrigal seemed like a locked-in second baseman. Positionally, there was a looming logjam, turned from a potentiality to an urgent reality when Dansby Swanson agreed to join the Cubs last winter.

Because Jed Hoyer refuses to make a trade simply out of need and will find a way to hold onto a player until given what he thinks the player is worth or absolutely forced to let him go, Madrigal was still around in 2023, despite Swanson's arrival and Hoerner's fairly clear assertion of superiority in the battle to slide to second. The tiny contact specialist took reps at third base all spring, which seemed like a bit of a stunt, but he more than held up to his limited trial at the hot corner during the regular season. In fact, he was one of the best defensive third basemen in baseball.

Even so, he didn't find any legitimate power. Nor did Hoerner, who stayed healthier and earned more consistent run than Madrigal and collected 688 plate appearances. Between the two of them, they went to bat almost 1,000 times, managed 43 doubles, legged out five triples, and only muscled up for 11 home runs. That's fairly crazy, in the modern game. Ever since the double-punch of two expansions in a half-decade and the crest of the performance-enhancing drugs problem coincided to alter the way fans consume baseball and its numbers, and ever since sabermetrics has gained a deeper foothold and begun pushing the game toward greater efficiency, power has become an indispensable, non-negotiable part of the package for good hitters.

In fact, you can go all the way back to the integration of MLB in 1947, and you still see a pretty inexorable trend. Here's a chart showing the number of qualifying hitters with fewer than 15 home runs but at least an average OPS+ per team, for each season since Jackie Robinson began the process of legitimizing the National League.

Not only has the trend been steadily (though imperfectly) downward, but we've seen some historically low figures over the last few years. In 2019, only three hitters were above-average at the plate despite having fewer than 15 homers: Kevin Newman, Wilson Ramos, and Kolten Wong. This past season, only six players cleared that bar: Luis Arráez, Mark Canha, Thairo Estrada, Steven Kwan, Lars Nootbaar, and Alex Verdugo. Those are easily the lowest figures in any full season. There was a brief time back in the late 1950s and early 1960s when it was almost as non-optional to hit for power in order to be productive, but even that wasn't quite this extreme.

Obviously, the main driver of that trend is the steady rise in baseline strikeout rate throughout the league. In a league like that of 1952, wherein the average batter struck out under 11 percent of the time and the most whiff-prone regular (Eddie Mathews) was still south of 20 percent, it was much easier to hit for a productive average and get on base at a fine clip without clearing the wall. Now, that baseline rate has more than doubled, and hitters have to get to more power to make up for that.

Madrigal and Hoerner are exceptions to the rule, in some sense. Maybe that counts for something. Hoerner struck out only 12.1 percent of the time in 2023, and Madrigal was way down at 8.2 percent. That makes them much more credible batters than most guys who have such a glaring lack of pop. Still, it sets a hard, low ceiling on their productivity. To wit, despite his great contact skills, Madrigal batted just .263/.311/.353, for a 79 OPS+, and Hoerner (even in what felt like a breakout campaign in which he fully made good on the promise he flashed in 2022) only had a 99 OPS+, himself. He's not even one of the six guys who cobbled together an above-average line without good power.

That's why it just wasn't ever going to work, not for the long term. Madrigal could be a fine little backup guy, but as a regular, he paired with Hoerner to give the team too much in the way of competitive but non-dynamic offense. We can wish it weren't so, but we live in a world beyond that of José Cruz or Buddy Bell. The productive, actively valuable 10-15 homer guy is a dying breed, and no team can afford to rely on two in the same lineup, unless they have undimmed superstars packing the heart of their batting order. Instead of that, the Cubs have Ian Happ, who only managed a couple more home runs last year than would have allowed him to be on the lists above. They can't win with Madrigal in the lineup every day, not because of Madrigal's shortcomings, but because they already have their quota of underpowered players in an overpowered offensive environment.

Yes, this is yet another in a long line of posts throughout the internet over the last year or more imploring the Cubs to trade Madrigal. I don't agree with what I consider a fairly facile set of criticisms of Madrigal's defense at third that have popped up on Twitter recently. There's been an intimation that somehow, because he plays more shallow and relies on a different playing style than Matt Chapman, Madrigal's brilliance with the glove last year is somehow fake or invalid. It's not that way. The up-the-middle positions are the demesnes of rangy, fluid athletes, making plays in space. The corners are a geographical proposition. It's perfectly acceptable, and very much the right choice for Madrigal, to play shallow and try to cut down the amount of range one needs, using exceptional quickness and the angles of the game. Some of history's great third basemen have done just that for over a decade.

I also don't want to automatically disqualify Madrigal because he lacks power at the plate. The narrow aesthetic tastes of too many modern fans notwithstanding, there is something delightful about Madrigal's skill set. I want there to be more Dave Cash types and more Eric Young Sr. types, not fewer. Nor is he as bad as many believe. Surprisingly (but tellingly), PECOTA forecasts a 107 DRC+ (where 100 is average and higher is better) for Madrigal in 2024. Not striking out still has some value. However, he's not ready to accept a backup role, and that's the only one in which the Cubs can presently afford to carry him. Instead of risking falling into using him as a redundant piece of the near-everyday lineup, the team should find a trade partner for Madrigal and then make some alternative plans at third base. 

---

How would you prefer the Cubs handle third base this spring? If not Madrigal, who should get the bulk of the playing time there? Let's discuss it further, including kicking around the remaining outside options.

View full article

[We Got The Whole 9]

Madrigal has had about 85% of his career PA end in a BIP. He's slow, cannot barrel up a ball, and hits way too many balls on the ground. I don't know if it's by coincedence or design, but since coming to the Cubs he has markedly raised his pull%, and has, in turn, posted a 280 BABIP with us, while it was around 330 with the Sox. Tiny samples but alas. Feels like the Cubs may be trying to wring something out of him that simply isn't there. He also saw a 20% bump in his FB%. You don't really want Madrigal to hit many FBs. They're almost always going to be a can-of-corn. Let him go up there and see-ball-hit-ball where it's pitched. His 'damage' will be done when he finds a line or a gap. He can probably be a league average hitter. Deal with his wimpy ass for one more season, or maybe half a season. He should be a bench player. 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't really feel there's a stylistic reason you can't have two players with Hoerner and Madrigal's skillset in the same lineup.  Yes they had 1000 PA of less than 15 HR and that's not ideal, but the contact ability is helpful for smoothing out offensive profiles, and they added over 50 SB at 85% success.  The 'problem' that exists is the same problem that exists to a similar degree when Morel and Mancini combine for 600 PA as they did last year: one of them didn't play very well.  If Madrigal continues to not at least sniff league average in overall production, then he's likely not long for any type of regular playing time.  And I've made the point multiple times that he's likely not going to be playing day in, day out because of matchups.  

 

Which brings me to a final point, I don't have hard numbers on this, but I also suspect Madrigal's offensive numbers are a little suppressed because he's used in a matchup-dependent platoon.  He's the one facing the guys that would've chewed up Wisdom/Morel, and because he lacks power he's not the one getting the look against many soft tossing lefties.  The best approximation I have for this is BR's 'Power/Finesse' split.  Madrigal's PA's broke down as 25%/30/50% Power/Average/Finesse.  By way of comparison, Morel's were 20%/30%/50%.  This doesn't mean it's the wrong decision to sit Madrigal against those types, but it's helpful to contextualize what we should expect from people taking on the PAs he's slated to take now.

[CubinNY]

Outside of Morel, Canerio, Wisdom, and Suzuki (not counting Bellinger, he's not on the team), their entire team has roughly the same profile. They just traded for a guy who will be playing 1st/3rd who has the same profile.  The top of their drafts are filled with guys with the same profile. They have a type. 

[Bertz]

Having Madrigal and Hoerner on the same team is not ideal, but it's in the same way that having Wisdom and Morel on the same team is not ideal.  Having two guys playing largely the same positions with largely the same offensive profile limits how well you can matchup against certain days.

When we've got a legitimate alternative at 3B yeah Madrigal needs to be shown the door.  But before we think too much about that we need to have that alternative capable of playing at at least the ~2.5 WAR/600 pace Madrigal projects at. 

Right now our alternatives are Mastrobuoni, 3 guys we're not sure can handle the position defensively, and 2-3 kids in the upper minors that we hope in short order can handle the position offensively.  Signing Chapman would be great in a vacuum, but add a third Morel/Wisdom type to the lineup.  Introducing diminishing returns in the same way having Madrigal+Hoerner does.

[CubUgly]

4 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Madrigal has had about 85% of his career PA end in a BIP. He's slow, cannot barrel up a ball, and hits way too many balls on the ground. I don't know if it's by coincedence or design, but since coming to the Cubs he has markedly raised his pull%, and has, in turn, posted a 280 BABIP with us, while it was around 330 with the Sox. 

He does not hit for power and he does not walk, and no matter who you match him up against, he probably never will.   So he IMHO needs to do what these days is not valued much at all by sabermageeks - hit for high average to justify continuing to play him.   Yes, there is some value to a high contact rate, but not as much if it's ground balls to second and 300 foot fly balls. 

[Stratos]

Madrigal isn't your ideal offensive player especially with Nico also lacking power, but end of the day its the total value they each bring to the team.   If Madrigal is putting up great defense and able to play at a 2 WAR pace or whatnot while in the lineup then that's ultimately what matters and it doesn't matter how he does it.  Scoring runs isn't any more important than run prevention.  I'd take 3 Nicos at 2B/SS/3B any day just like I'd take 3 Juan Sotos in the OF.

Edited February 8, 2024 by Stratos

[CubinNY]

9 hours ago, Stratos said:

Madrigal isn't your ideal offensive player especially with Nico also lacking power, but end of the day its the total value they each bring to the team.   If Madrigal is putting up great defense and able to play at a 2 WAR pace or whatnot while in the lineup then that's ultimately what matters and it doesn't matter how he does it.  Scoring runs isn't any more important than run prevention.  I'd take 3 Nicos at 2B/SS/3B any day just like I'd take 3 Juan Sotos in the OF.

scoring runs and run prevention are also not the opposite thing. One is real the other is a hypothetical construct. 

[squally1313]

51 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

scoring runs and run prevention are also not the opposite thing. One is real the other is a hypothetical construct. 

can you elaborate

[Bertz]

52 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

scoring runs and run prevention are also not the opposite thing. One is real the other is a hypothetical construct. 

 

[CubinNY]

41 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

can you elaborate

The metric used is a statistical model that does not equal actual runs. It's a hypothetical model to establish a defensive value measurement system. In other words, a "defensive run saved" is not a real run. It's a number that more or less may equate to reality. But it is not measuring runs, it's measuring some aspect of catching and/or catching and throwing a hit baseball. 

[squally1313]

13 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

The metric used is a statistical model that does not equal actual runs. It's a hypothetical model to establish a defensive value measurement system. In other words, a "defensive run saved" is not a real run. It's a number that more or less may equate to reality. But it is not measuring runs, it's measuring some aspect of catching and/or catching and throwing a hit baseball. 

How many runs do you assign to hitting a single

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Offensive metrics are adding up hypothetical runs that mostly equate to reality too.

A different way to express what it feels like you're getting at is to compare it to money/personal finances.  There isn't a limit to what you can earn in the same way there isn't a limit to what you can score, but in a practical sense there is a limit to what you can save and therefore how much defensive value you can create.  At a certain level that also probably has a material effect on Wins/Losses when it comes to how they impact game state, but I don't really feel the Cubs roster(3rd in the NL in runs, 7th in Def) is all that close to that point.

[CubinNY]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

How many runs do you assign to hitting a single

Doesn't that depend on an actual run scoring? So if a run scored, I'd assign 1 run. If a run didn't score, I'd assign 0. 

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

Doesn't that depend on an actual run scoring? So if a run scored, I'd assign 1 run. If a run didn't score, I'd assign 0. 

So are any statistics real to you besides like, home runs?

[CubinNY]

Just now, Transmogrified Tiger said:

Offensive metrics are adding up hypothetical runs that mostly equate to reality too.

A different way to express what it feels like you're getting at is to compare it to money/personal finances.  There isn't a limit to what you can earn in the same way there isn't a limit to what you can score, but in a practical sense there is a limit to what you can save and therefore how much defensive value you can create.  At a certain level that also probably has a material effect on Wins/Losses when it comes to how they impact game state, but I don't really feel the Cubs roster(3rd in the NL in runs, 7th in Def) is all that close to that point.

It's not the same. If I don't spend $5 on a coffee, that's real money in my pocket. I'm not saying it's not a potentially valuable tool, I'm saying it's not measuring a real thing other than catching or catching and throwing, the outcome of which may result in a team not scoring a run that otherwise would have scored. It's a shorthand way of talking about defensive value. It's not a shorthand way of talking about taking away a run the same way a CF jumps over the fence and robs a home run or a SS nails a guy from the outfield at home who is trying to score on a double. 

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

So are any statistics real to you besides like, home runs?

Descriptive statistics measure the real aspects of a population or the environment. Inferential statistics are models. The basis of the usefulness of each is dependent upon how close they approximate reality. I feel like we have this type of discussion multiple times a year. Reality is never not real. A statistical model's usefulness depends on how closely it matches reality. And when it does not match reality the reasons lie in measurement error due to the complexity of the system, not in some mystical metaphysical property of the universe. 

[Rex Buckingham]

my issue with trying to place a proper value on defense is that I think it is more context-dependent than offense. 

If you're not the pitcher, you can't determine anything until the ball is hit to you. You can be a great defender in the outfield, but if dudes are hitting 100+ MPH into the gaps, it's still a double or more. PCA could be the best CF defender in baseball, but he can't do anything about a 450 ft tank given up by Taillon and he's less likely to produce a run on offense than a dude who slugs .500. Even the best infielders  can only make the plays on balls hit to them, and the harder a ball is hit the harder it is to make the play. 

Hitting is simpler to understand - for most guys, hit the ball hard and normally good things happen. The harder you hit it, the better the results tend to be, no matter how good the defense is, especially if you hit it in the air and not on the ground.

[CubinNY]

12 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

my issue with trying to place a proper value on defense is that I think it is more context-dependent than offense. 

If you're not the pitcher, you can't determine anything until the ball is hit to you. You can be a great defender in the outfield, but if dudes are hitting 100+ MPH into the gaps, it's still a double or more. PCA could be the best CF defender in baseball, but he can't do anything about a 450 ft tank given up by Taillon and he's less likely to produce a run on offense than a dude who slugs .500. Even the best infielders  can only make the plays on balls hit to them, and the harder a ball is hit the harder it is to make the play. 

Hitting is simpler to understand - for most guys, hit the ball hard and normally good things happen. The harder you hit it, the better the results tend to be, no matter how good the defense is, especially if you hit it in the air and not on the ground.

There is a lot more that goes into trying to measure defensive value. A hit is easy to measure. With defense, you have to take into account where the ball was hit, where the guy was standing before the ball was hit, his ability to get to a baseball quickly and catch it, how quickly the ball is released once it is caught, how hard it is thrown, how accurate the throw is, and a bunch of stuff I'm probably missing. 

We can get a good indication and rank order of guys who are better and worse at those things by position using statistical analysis, even though the difference between them may be small and unimportant for several players and larger for others. But most of the time if a guy is not good based on the eye test, he's never going to be in the group of players for that position for which there is enough data to get useful analysis.  

The thing about statistics is that the numbers don't mean anything until they get large enough for predictive value. Then when they get super large, small and unimportant differences may be statistically significant but have little practical difference.