Wait. Was That What a Kyle Tucker Slump Looks Like?

[RandallPnkFloyd]

 

 

Image courtesy of © Charles LeClaire-Imagn Images

Through April 20, you'd have been hard-pressed to find a better hitter in the National League than Kyle Tucker. After a brutal spring, the Chicago Cubs' superstar came out hot, with a slash that included a .302 average and .404 on-base percentage. His ISO checked in at .313 (six homers) with baserunning efficiency to match the power (four steals). That's to say nothing of a strikeout rate (12.3%) that came in at a clip below his walk rate (14.9%). 

Since that point, however, Tucker has been... not that. In the seven games from April 21-30, Tucker's wRC+ sat at just 87. He hit .192/.323/.308. It's not an ideal stretch, given how strong the Cubs' offense has been going, and the extent to which that dominance relied upon Tucker's production. But even with a late April swoon, the team is still getting plenty of value out of his bat, and there were indications that he'd pull out of it quickly, all along.

Logically, let's talk about that latter point first. Tucker's BABIP over the seven games in question (.190) indicates some brutal batted-ball luck. There isn't a ton in his batted-ball profile to suggest he was doing anything terribly differently. His swing and contact rates looked quite similar in that first stretch versus the more recent one. His approach to the zone has been consistent, and there's plenty of variance in the types of pitches at which he's swinging: 

If there was any discernible trend, it would likely be the result of pitch types, since his zone approach hasn't fluctuated in any perceptible manner. But, as pictured above, no such trend exists. Plenty of variance exists in the last handful of games, just as it did earlier in the month—which is to say, we have really no reason to be concerned about Tucker, given some of the underlying factors. That was underscored when he took Paul Skenes deep Thursday, even if three other well-struck balls went for outs on the day.

The more important note, for our purposes at present, goes back to that first point: the fact that even a slumping Kyle Tucker is one capable of contributing plenty to the team's offense. 

Tucker's trend of having a walk rate higher than his strikeout rate remained intact. Even through a tough stretch, he struck out at just a 12.9% rate, against a 16.1% clip for walks. He's also stolen another four bases. That he's still able to contribute to the offense while not experiencing any level of luck when actually putting the ball in play says a lot about the caliber of hitter he is. And this isn't a new type of thing from him, either. If anything, it's a hallmark.

Per Stathead, there are 133 instances of Tucker having a seven-game stretch in which he hit under .195. He's walked at least twice in such stretches almost 70 percent of the time, and has stolen at least one base in well over half of them. They don't all look quite as good as far as the OBP component goes, but it speaks to his overall development into the star that he is. Only 16 of the 110 total instances where he featured an OBP under .300 in one of these stretches have come in the two years prior to 2025. 

It's difficult to recall a hitter in even recent memory who was able to provide actual offensive value, even when working through a questionable stretch. Prime Anthony Rizzo is probably our best recent example, with an even greater stockpile of .300+ OBP runs in low batting average stretches (but also a higher volume of seven-game stretches under .195). Kyle Schwarber was able to do it occasionally (but has done it more since leaving). Aramis Ramírez did it a handful of times. Derrek Lee had a few. Suffice to say, it's been a minute since the Cubs had a hitter showcase the type of balance in working through a tough stretch while still staying afloat in the offensive contributions department.

It's not like we needed additional reasons to stockpile as to why having (and keeping!) a hitter like Kyle Tucker is such an imperative to a team like the Cubs. But here's another one.

View full article