Kyle Tucker's Slump Can Be Fixed, But His Timing Needs Work

[matto1233]

Image courtesy of © David Banks-Imagn Images

Opinions will be mixed on Jed Hoyer’s trade deadline activity, or rather, lack thereof. To be clear, I wasn’t a fan of it. Not to mention, it looks even worse now after Michael Soroka got placed in the injured list after just two innings in a Cubs uniform, and after Andrew Kittredge took the loss in last Tuesday’s game, giving up four earned runs and recording just one out. 

None of that is great. If we’re being entirely honest with ourselves, though, the pitching hasn’t been the issue of late. In the six games since the trade deadline passed, the Cubs have given up zero, four, three, three, five, and one runs. Their team ERA is 2.67, and that’s third in baseball in that timeframe. Yet the team is only 3-3. The pitching hasn’t been the issue.

The offense is rocking a dastardly 72 wRC+, an all-encompassing offensive statistic where 100 is considered average, since the start of August, meaning they are 28 percent below league average. That’s 25th in baseball, according to FanGraphs. These struggles start with Kyle Tucker, inarguably the team’s best hitter, who has a wRC+ of just 8 in those six games. But his struggles go back much further than that:

Month	wRC+	HR
March/April	157	7
May	146	5
June	174	5
July/August	91	1

Prior to this blip in July and August, you’d struggle to find a more consistent performer than Tucker. Thanks to his keen eye at the plate, he has such a high floor as a hitter. That hasn’t changed one bit. The slugger had a 14.3 percent walk rate prior to July. He’s actually raised it to 18 percent in the time since. 

Suffice to say, there’s very little that is different from an approach standpoint. He swung at 18.8 percent of pitches outside of the strike zone during the first three months of the season, and that is down to 15.2 percent since. When it comes to his patience at the plate, Tucker is very much the same player that he has ever been. 

Much has been made about Tucker’s finger injury sustained on June 1 against the Reds. I’m not sure that I entirely buy that as the reason for his cold stretch. As evidenced in the table above, he went on to have his best month of the season, by wRC+, in June, immediately after the injury. He didn’t really start struggling until July. 

I would think an injury like that would be evident when you look at a player’s swing speed. Prior to his finger injury, an average Kyle Tucker swing was clocked at 72.1 mph, per Baseball Savant. His average swing has been 72 mph since then. I’m ruling out the finger injury. 

The one home run on that chart above is what really sticks out to me. Right or wrong, I’ve always felt that power is something that stays relatively consistent. Batting average might come and go month to month, or even season to season, based on some of the breaks that you’re getting. But a home run is a home run. There’s not a lot of luck required in hitting the ball over the fence (barring a very windy day at the Friendly Confines).

Balls hit over the fence are typically hit in the air and to the pull side of the field. Tucker’s fly ball rate was a healthy 48.7 percent prior to July. In his more recent rough stretch, it has plummeted to 39.7 percent. Even worse, 32.8 percent of his fly balls were hit to the pull side early on this season. From July onward, only 22.6 percent of his fly balls are pulled. Now, 48.4 percent of his fly balls are hit to center field, the largest part of the ballpark. You probably won’t hit many home runs that way. 

While Tucker is as complete of a hitter as they come, he’s always done most of his slugging against fastballs. This is typical. Fastballs are straight and easier to hit. That’s baseball 101. Since the start of July, though, Tucker’s performance against fastballs has completely fallen off of a cliff.

Month	Batting Average	Slugging Percentage
March-June	.309	.556
July-August	.148	.222

Performing this poorly against fastballs, and suddenly hitting a lot less balls to the pull side, suggests a timing issue, at least to me. My hypothesis was that if we looked at a spray chart of Tucker’s from July onward, isolated only to fastballs put in play, we’d see a decent chunk of fly outs to deep center field. You be the judge:

I don’t know about you, but I see a grouping of five or so balls there that would have been home runs had they been hit to another part of the ballpark. It’s not always this simple. Hitters fly out to the warning track sometimes! But, when a good majority of a hitter's best struck baseballs against fastballs are going to center field (heck, almost to the opposite field), my assumption is you’re having some sort of issue timing the baseball, especially with so few being hit to the pull side.

In short, I think that this is good news for the Cubs. A timing issue is fixable. A finger injury is, too, but that requires time, which the Cubs don’t currently have since the Milwaukee Brewers will apparently not lose a baseball game for the rest of the season. Also, since Kyle Tucker might only be a Chicago Cub for a couple more months, it's better if this is a problem he can turn around in short order. Hopefully, he can get back to crushing fastballs so we can all remember his time here a bit more fondly. Or, the Cubs can just extend him. How about both?

View full article

[Victor Reichman]

I would not extend Tucker. As I stated at the beginning of the season, he isn't much of an upgrade from Bellinger. Both are good players. But check the stats, they are similar with a slight edge to Belli. And we stupidly paid $5 mil of his salary to NY and gave up 3 decent players.

IMO, Hoyer signed Tucker as his job was in jeopardy. There is about a 5% chance that Tucker will resign as his agent is Boras, who puts money over comfort levels. Tucker is not worth a long term contract at funny money. If he were to sign for 3 yrs. at $40 mil. per, I would be OK with that. But he won't and I don't want another Jason Heyward deal.

[Jason Ross]

3 hours ago, Victor Reichman said:

I would not extend Tucker. As I stated at the beginning of the season, he isn't much of an upgrade from Bellinger. Both are good players. But check the stats, they are similar with a slight edge to Belli. And we stupidly paid $5 mil of his salary to NY and gave up 3 decent players.

IMO, Hoyer signed Tucker as his job was in jeopardy. There is about a 5% chance that Tucker will resign as his agent is Boras, who puts money over comfort levels. Tucker is not worth a long term contract at funny money. If he were to sign for 3 yrs. at $40 mil. per, I would be OK with that. But he won't and I don't want another Jason Heyward deal.

Kyle Tucker - 142 wRC+
Cody Bellinger - 121 wRC+

Kyle Tucker - 4.3 fWAR
Cody Bellinger - 3.2 fWAR

Kyle Tucker has been 20% better offensively and been worth a full win more. The only reason it is this close is because Kyle Tucker has gone cold for a bit. In all of his full seasons, Kyle Tucker averages a 142 wRC+. which is what he's done this year. Cody Bellinger hasn't had a 142 wRC+ season since 2019, and he did it one time. Since his resurgence he has had a 122 wRC+, so these are pretty standard numbers.

It should also be noted that Kyle Tucker has had bad batted ball luck. Bellinger has outhit his xData. This means moving forward we should expect Tucker to be better than he's been and Bellinger to be worse.

Kyle Tucker wOBA vs xwOBA - .370 vs .390
Cody Bellinger wOBA vs xwOBA - .348 vs ,331

If Tucker had a .390 wOBA like his xwOBA suggests, he would be the 7th best hitter in baseball tied with Cal Raleigh. As is he is tied for 14th. Cody Bellinger is 48th, however if he had his xwOBA, he would be the 78th best hitter in baseball.

Pay. Kyle. Tucker. It is not close between Cody Bellinger and Kyle Tucker. One of these players is an elite baseball player who has had bad variance and the other is a fine baseball player who has had good variance.

[cubfansince77]

3 hours ago, Victor Reichman said:

I would not extend Tucker. As I stated at the beginning of the season, he isn't much of an upgrade from Bellinger. Both are good players. But check the stats, they are similar with a slight edge to Belli. And we stupidly paid $5 mil of his salary to NY and gave up 3 decent players.

IMO, Hoyer signed Tucker as his job was in jeopardy. There is about a 5% chance that Tucker will resign as his agent is Boras, who puts money over comfort levels. Tucker is not worth a long term contract at funny money. If he were to sign for 3 yrs. at $40 mil. per, I would be OK with that. But he won't and I don't want another Jason Heyward deal.

Couldn't agree more. Tuck is a really GOOD MLB outfielder. I think very highly of him but not to the tune of a 400-500 mil deal over ten years....no friggin' way, the guy will be 30 yrs. old. With that being said, trading away Paredes and Smith for ONE year of Tucker isn't good business. It's just not. The cherry on top of the turd sundae? Borass is Tuck's agent....perfect.

Edited August 10, 2025 by cubfansince77

[Jason Ross]

11 minutes ago, cubfansince77 said:

Couldn't agree more. Tuck is a really GOOD MLB outfielder. I think very highly of him but not to the tune of a 400-500 mil deal over ten years....no friggin' way, the guy will be 30 yrs. old. With that being said, trading away Paredes and Smith for ONE year of Tucker isn't good business. It's just not. The cherry on top of the turd sundae? Borass is Tuck's agent....perfect.

Boras is not Kyle Tucker's agent. His agent is Casey Close of Excel Management Group. 

On the "good business front" I could not disagree more. Parades has been good, but also is tailor made for Houston, not Chicago, due to their fields. Cam Smith has been generally bad so far, posting a 95 wRC+. He's been brutally bad since the Cubs series and hasnt hit RHP all year. He may eventually be a good MLB player, but right now looks like a bit of a mess. And unlike when Shaw was struggling, under the hood stuff does not like where he is headed. He is in a spot where it is hard to pin point a real green flag; his K% is spiking and his BABIP is fine, meaning he isnt the recipient of bad luck; he has just been bad for a while.

On the backend the Cubs got a hitter who has been performing like a top-15 hitter even with the bad run. 

Kyle Tucker is an elite baseball player. Parades is fine. Bellinger is fine. Cam Smith might be fine, or better. But only one of those *is* an elite player without a shadow of a doubt and we have got to stop worrying about trading good players to get elite ones. 

[cubfansince77]

19 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

Boras is not Kyle Tucker's agent. His agent is Casey Close of Excel Management Group. 

On the "good business front" I could not disagree more. Parades has been good, but also is tailor made for Houston, not Chicago, due to their fields. Cam Smith has been generally bad so far, posting a 95 wRC+. He's been brutally bad since the Cubs series and hasnt hit RHP all year. He may eventually be a good MLB player, but right now looks like a bit of a mess. And unlike when Shaw was struggling, under the hood stuff does not like where he is headed. He is in a spot where it is hard to pin point a real green flag; his K% is spiking and his BABIP is fine, meaning he isnt the recipient of bad luck; he has just been bad for a while.

On the backend the Cubs got a hitter who has been performing like a top-15 hitter even with the bad run. 

Kyle Tucker is an elite baseball player. Parades is fine. Bellinger is fine. Cam Smith might be fine, or better. But only one of those *is* an elite player without a shadow of a doubt and we have got to stop worrying about trading good players to get elite ones. 

GOOD stuff JR...I stand corrected. 

[Backtobanks]

20 hours ago, Jason Ross said:

Boras is not Kyle Tucker's agent. His agent is Casey Close of Excel Management Group. 

On the "good business front" I could not disagree more. Parades has been good, but also is tailor made for Houston, not Chicago, due to their fields. Cam Smith has been generally bad so far, posting a 95 wRC+. He's been brutally bad since the Cubs series and hasnt hit RHP all year. He may eventually be a good MLB player, but right now looks like a bit of a mess. And unlike when Shaw was struggling, under the hood stuff does not like where he is headed. He is in a spot where it is hard to pin point a real green flag; his K% is spiking and his BABIP is fine, meaning he isnt the recipient of bad luck; he has just been bad for a while.

On the backend the Cubs got a hitter who has been performing like a top-15 hitter even with the bad run. 

Kyle Tucker is an elite baseball player. Parades is fine. Bellinger is fine. Cam Smith might be fine, or better. But only one of those *is* an elite player without a shadow of a doubt and we have got to stop worrying about trading good players to get elite ones. 

 And that certainly means trading good prospects to get elite players (Ryan, Gore, etc.)

[DK1230]

On 8/9/2025 at 9:21 PM, Jason Ross said:

Kyle Tucker - 142 wRC+
Cody Bellinger - 121 wRC+

Kyle Tucker - 4.3 fWAR
Cody Bellinger - 3.2 fWAR

Kyle Tucker has been 20% better offensively and been worth a full win more. The only reason it is this close is because Kyle Tucker has gone cold for a bit. In all of his full seasons, Kyle Tucker averages a 142 wRC+. which is what he's done this year. Cody Bellinger hasn't had a 142 wRC+ season since 2019, and he did it one time. Since his resurgence he has had a 122 wRC+, so these are pretty standard numbers.

It should also be noted that Kyle Tucker has had bad batted ball luck. Bellinger has outhit his xData. This means moving forward we should expect Tucker to be better than he's been and Bellinger to be worse.

Kyle Tucker wOBA vs xwOBA - .370 vs .390
Cody Bellinger wOBA vs xwOBA - .348 vs ,331

If Tucker had a .390 wOBA like his xwOBA suggests, he would be the 7th best hitter in baseball tied with Cal Raleigh. As is he is tied for 14th. Cody Bellinger is 48th, however if he had his xwOBA, he would be the 78th best hitter in baseball.

Pay. Kyle. Tucker. It is not close between Cody Bellinger and Kyle Tucker. One of these players is an elite baseball player who has had bad variance and the other is a fine baseball player who has had good variance.

Ah, the old "bad luck" rationalization for every metric that doesn't line up with asinine metrics.  Put whatever numbers you want on it, Tucker has simply not barreled fastballs for the better part of two months.  Tha'ts based on a metric I like to call EYETEST.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

23 minutes ago, DK1230 said:

Ah, the old "bad luck" rationalization for every metric that doesn't line up with asinine metrics.  Put whatever numbers you want on it, Tucker has simply not barreled fastballs for the better part of two months.  Tha'ts based on a metric I like to call EYETEST.  

[Jason Ross]

52 minutes ago, DK1230 said:

Ah, the old "bad luck" rationalization for every metric that doesn't line up with asinine metrics.  Put whatever numbers you want on it, Tucker has simply not barreled fastballs for the better part of two months.  Tha'ts based on a metric I like to call EYETEST.  

MLB organizations are literally in the business of winning baseball games. The people they chose to either helm their VP of Baseball Ops or their General Manager (each organization has a different name for these) has one job; win baseball games. If they don't win baseball games, these people are fired. 

The people MLB organizations pick to win baseball games are almost exclusively data-dorks. Andrew Friedman was an analysist for a financial firm. AJ Preller went to Cornell and graduated Summa Cum Laude. Craig Breslow with the Red Sox did pitch in the MLB, but he has a degree from an Ivy League school in molecular biophysics. You can do this for almost every person helming a successful MLB organization.  

If teams thought the "eye test" mattered, MLB organizations would be run by former MLB players exclusively not data-dorks from Ivy League schools or financial analysts. If MLB teams feel as though the best way forward in terms of determining wins and losses are through data and not the eye test, then maybe regular people like you and I, who's entire business is not winning and losing baseball games should have some hubris and recognize that our personal eye test is not applicable. 

And to clarify just a bit more, my post was not some eyetest vs data argument, you've created that stawman yourself. You're right, his timing is a little off. But Kyle Tucker, even with those struggles has been one of the best hitters in all of baseball. Yes, even the very best hitters in baseball have rough months. Jose Ramirez has been awful so far in August (78 wRC+), Pete Alonso was terrible in July (51 wRC+). Freddie Freeman was terrible in June (54 wRC+). Kyle Tucker's worst full month on the season is a 106 wRC+ in July. His August is trending towards being much worse than that, but he's got two-thirds of it to go and all he needs is like one big week. 

My post was about being positive about how good Kyle Tucker is, and that there is even some bad luck baked in. Instead, you wanted to make it about the eye test instead of the context.