Dilip Vishwanat - Getty Images
Approximately 1% of McLouth's slump has been caused by excessive lip-biting.
As we are all painfully aware, many Braves hitters have started the year in slumps. Fortunately, some of the slumpers have already begun to emerge (Melky, Glaus) and others undoubtedly will soon, provided they are healthy (Escobar, Chipper). The two hitters who have yet to show any signs of life this year are Matt Diaz and Nate McLouth. While Diaz has been worse, McLouth's slump is probably more worrisome. Why? Because he was equally bad in Spring Training and at the end of last year. Even if you discount ST, here are Nate's numbers for the last quarter-season or so:
| When | PA | AB | H | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | SO | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS |
| End 2009 | 81 | 66 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 18 | .136 | .288 | .258 | .545 |
| 2010 | 77 | 64 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 19 | .172 | .299 | .297 | .596 |
| Total | 158 | 130 | 20 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 22 | 37 | .154 | .293 | .277 | .570 |
Those are some ugly, ugly numbers. Given that they cover about a quarter-season, you might be tempted to dismiss McLouth as injured, terrible, or both. But remember that 158 PA is still a fairly small amount. Let's compare the numbers from his slump to what his career averages look like when pro-rated to the same number of PA:
| What | H | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | SO | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | BABIP | GB% |
| Career Avg. | 35 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 15 | 27 | .257 | .340 | .448 | .788 | .285 | 37% |
| Slump | 20 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 22 | 37 | .154 | .293 | .277 | .570 | .180 | 43% |
| Difference | 15 | 5 | 1 | 1 | -7 | -10 | .103 | .047 | .171 | .218 | .105 | -6% |
I've added two extra columns that are crucial to understanding the nature of McLouth's slump: Batting average on balls in play (BABIP) and ground-ball rate (GB%). As you can see, Nate's BABIP has been abnormally low during his slump, due largely to bad luck. Though other factors can cause a lowered BABIP, they cannot cause nearly this magnitude of a discrepancy--nobody hits .180 on balls in play without a lot of bad luck (except maybe Tommy Hanson).
Nate's GB% has gone up a fair amount during his slump. Since ground balls are worse than fly balls (especially in terms of extra-base hits), the added number of ground balls would also make Nate's numbers worse.
You may also have noticed that Nate has been putting far fewer balls in play lately, as his walk and strikeout totals have both skyrocketed during the slump. This has an overall negative effect, since you can't get extra-base hits if you don't hit the ball fair. Perhaps Nate is actually working the count too much.
So we have 3 possible explanations for Nate's slump: an abnormally low BABIP (caused mostly by bad luck), a slight increase in ground-ball rate, and a change in plate discipline. After the jump, I break down each of these 3 factors to see just how much of Nate's slump is caused by each one.

Like a scientist would do, I did my best to isolate each of the 3 variables. In the discussions below, I determine what McLouth's numbers would look like if only 1 of the 3 variables reverted to normal. So for the "Low BABIP" section, I used Nate's career BABIP figures but the GB% and plate discipline stats from his slump.
Overall, we're looking to account for a loss of 15 hits and 25 total bases, as well as about 100 points of AVG, 50 points of OBP, and 170 points of SLG.
I looked up Nate's career BABIP for ground balls, fly balls, and line drives. I then multiplied those numbers by the GB/FB/LD splits from his slump to see what his BABIP, AVG, and ISO (isolated power, or SLG minus AVG) would be if his BABIP were normal. Here is what I found:
| What | H | TB | BB | SO | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | BABIP | GB | FB | LD |
| Normal BABIP | 28 | 48 | 22 | 37 | .218 | .346 | .374 | .720 | .274 | 39 | 36 | 16 |
| Actual | 20 | 36 | 22 | 37 | .154 | .293 | .277 | .570 | .180 | 39 | 36 | 16 |
| Difference | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 | .064 | .053 | .097 | .150 | .096 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
With normal BABIP rates, McLouth would have had 8 more hits and 12 more total bases over this period. That equates to a 150 point increase in his OPS. That is a huge difference, although the resulting .720 OPS is still underwhelming. This should give Braves fans (and McLouth) some comfort, as it indicates that he's not playing nearly as badly as his current line suggests. He does clearly need to work on a few things, though.
There is some question of just how much of this abnormally low BABIP is attributable to luck, and how much is attributable to McLouth himself. For instance, if Nate is not hitting the ball as hard as normal, or if he has lost some foot speed, that would naturally reduce his BABIP. Still, I'd say that at least half (and probably much more) of the drop in BABIP is due to bad luck.
For this section, the only thing I changed was the relative proportion of McLouth's GBs, FBs, and LDs, for which I used his career rates (37% GB / 44% FB / 19% LD). This meant that instead of 39 GBs, 36 FBs, and 16 LDs, I was assuming Nate had hit 34 GBs, 40 FBs, and 17 LDs. Here are the results:
| What | H | TB | BB | SO | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | BABIP | GB | FB | LD |
| Normal GB% | 21 | 40 | 22 | 37 | .165 | .302 | .307 | .609 | .187 | 34 | 40 | 17 |
| Actual | 20 | 36 | 22 | 37 | .154 | .293 | .277 | .570 | .180 | 39 | 36 | 16 |
| Difference | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | .011 | .009 | .030 | .039 | .007 | -5 | 4 | 1 |
McLouth's increased GB% has cost him only 1 hit, 4 total bases, and 39 points of OPS. This is a noticeable amount, but not very large when compared to the effects of his low BABIP.
For this section, I kept Nate's batted-ball rates and BABIP numbers at his slump levels. The only change was to convert the 7 extra walks and 10 extra strikeouts into balls in play. Thus, instead of 39 GBs, 36 FBs, and 16 LDs, I assumed that McLouth had hit 46 GBs, 43 FBs, and 19 LDs. In that scenario, Nate's numbers would look something like this:
| What | H | TB | BB | SO | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | BABIP | GB | FB | LD |
| Normal BB, SO | 25 | 44 | 15 | 27 | .179 | .277 | .324 | .601 | .180 | 46 | 43 | 19 |
| Actual | 20 | 36 | 22 | 37 | .154 | .293 | .277 | .570 | .180 | 39 | 36 | 16 |
| Difference | 5 | 8 | -7 | -10 | .025 | -.016 | .047 | .031 | .000 | 7 | 7 | 3 |
If Nate had maintained his career walk and strikeout rates during his slump, he would have gained about 5 hits and 8 total bases. Though this would have increased his AVG and SLG, it would also have lowered his OBP. Overall, he'd gain 31 points of OPS, but since OBP is more important than SLG, the actual benefit would be somewhat less than it seems. Again, this is a measurable difference but not nearly as large as the difference caused by his low BABIP.
Overall, we can safely say that each of the 3 factors has had some effect on McLouth's slump. The abnormally low BABIP is clearly the biggest factor, however. Here's a breakdown of how much of the Nate's lower stats during the slump can be explained by each factor:
| Factor | H | TB | BB | SO | AVG | OBP | SLG | OPS | ISO |
| Low BABIP | 8 | 12 | 0 | 0 | .064 | .053 | .097 | .150 | .033 |
| High GB% | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | .011 | .009 | .030 | .039 | .019 |
| Discipline | 5 | 8 | -7 | -10 | .025 | -.016 | .047 | .031 | .022 |
| Total | 14 | 24 | -7 | -10 | .102 | .046 | .174 | .220 | .063 |
When you compare the total differences explained by these 3 factors to the actual differences listed in the second table, you see that these 3 factors explain about 99% of Nate's slump. About two-thirds of the slump is due to an abnormally low BABIP (most of which is caused by bad luck), about one-fifth is due to a high GB%, and about one-eighth is due to a change in plate discipline.
What does this mean? I'd say there are 4 keys to Nate's performance going forward (ranked in order of importance):
If Nate can do all this, he'll be back to being the very good player he used to be (though not an all-star; he was never really all-star caliber). I have no idea when (or even if) any of this will happen, but let's hope it happens soon. We could use some more pop from our outfielders.
1 recs | 27 comments
He doesn’t look injured to me. He just has a big swing and perhaps pitchers have figured him out. It’s up to Nate to make adjustments and he hasn’t been doing that.
Not sure what I think about Nate. I didn’t care for the trade, nor was I against it. Nate was always a stop-gap though and not a permanent solution.
Maybe all we can hope for is for Schafer to actually be 100% healthy and work his way back to the majors quickly.
Sparhawk - May 4, 2010
This
John Holton - May 4, 2010
The good thing is that the trade isn’t working for the Pirates either.
Morton is 5-14 in 23 starts, with a 5.89 ERA
Hernandez is 22 years old at AA hitting .202/.290/.213, 0 HR, 4 RBI, 4 SB
Locke is 22 years old at A+, 2-1 with a 3.04 ERA in 5 starts.
Nothing all that impressive. Morton wouldn’t be starting for most teams, Hernandez can’t hit, and Locke has never pitched above A+. I’m not missing any of that.
jack dein - May 4, 2010
Sadly
Given the finances behind McLovin’s contract, he was seen as more than a stop-gap. If we were to keep him, we’d still have him all through 2011, and in all likelihood, buy him out for $1.5M for 2012, because Jordan Schafer will probably already be up at that time.
It’s just kind of baffling at how above-average he was for Pittsburgh, and has been absolutely less than average for us. Maybe he needs to grow out his hair again
royhobbs - May 4, 2010
He was actually great for us
for most of his first 2.5 months. It was only in the last 2-3 weeks that he really cooled down.
Jacob Peterson - May 4, 2010
the hair!
of course
Bravely going forward - May 4, 2010
Bad post. Stats aren’t allowed on TC. The only way to judge a player is how he hit during the past week.
Great work Jacob!
Scott Coleman - May 4, 2010 via mobile
/obligatory fire TP post
There, now no one has to post that.
DogDaysofSummer - May 4, 2010
Why stop there?
Why not fire everyone who had a hand in this happening? I’m talkin’ FW, Bobby, Obama…everyone.
GeneParmesan - May 4, 2010
He has a massive uppercut swing. I doubt he’ll ever hit higher than .260 but he is a decent player.
jack dein - May 4, 2010
I've never been a huge BABIP guy
largely because it doesn’t factor in batter’s tendencies during slumps (if that makes sense). Throughout this rough spell, McLouth has been pulling almost everything he hits on the ground, including balls on the outer half. That has resulted in a ton of weak grounders, so I don’t attribute his low average to bad luck at all. He has not been having good at bats no matter how you slice it though.
Qtips - May 4, 2010
Hence the inclusion of the GB% and the fact that we’re not going by any one stat. BABIP never tells the whole story, but big discrepancies like that will reveal at least a portion of it.
J-Freak - May 4, 2010
oh i know
I was just pointing out why I dont like BABIP. Wasn’t criticizing the write-up at all, just voicing my dislike for 1 stat.
Qtips - May 4, 2010
Take a look
At McLouth’s swing stats to find more. He’s swinging less often than in the past and making less contact when he does — by a fairly large margin. Also, keep in mind that the swing stats are the only non-SSS-affected information we have right now. I’m personally worried that his vision is still not right or he’s having a tough time adjusting with contacts.
fphjr01 - May 4, 2010
I'm betting this is the case. It may have effed up his depth perception.
Also, it seems to me that BABIP can be really dependant on the opposing fielders. I think the GB% is more telling.
EyePod - May 4, 2010
It is to an extent, but we have seen both lousy and amazing fielders in the games that we’ve played, which is why BABIP still works. If you analyzed BABIP within a series that would be a little silly.
J-Freak - May 4, 2010
The vision is certainly a possibility
and that could explain why he’s swinging at fewer strikes. I think more likely is that he’s just being less aggressive. It’s really hard to quantify the effects of vision. I know Nate has said that his eyes are great, though. Personally, I trust that assessment. I think it’s mainly luck and approach.
Jacob Peterson - May 4, 2010
Just a thought...
Is there anyway that Bobby may have asked Lil Mac to change his approach a bit once he slid into the leadoff spot in ATL? He was hitting in the three with more pop in his bat in Pittsburg but the more groundballs could be a product of wanting to increase OBP but it has had an adverse efffect instead. Thoughts?
BeantownVol - May 4, 2010
It’s also key to note that Nate’s O-Swing% (% of balls swung at outside the strike zone) has remained steady, he’s not swinging at any more bad pitches than normal. His Z-Swing has dropped a ton however, meaning he is swinging at 10% less balls in the strikezone. From this it should not be a surprise to tell you that he is swinging at an all time low % of pitches. Pitchers have adjusted and the % of pitches he sees in the strike zone is an all time low for him as well.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3190&position=OF#advanced
Basically he needs to be more aggressive.
Eltoasto - May 4, 2010
Excellent point
which basically explains why his BB and SO rates are both much higher right now. Thanks.
Jacob Peterson - May 4, 2010
While he is slumping, he had a pretty good last week. I think once he starts going opposite field more often, then everything will be fine.
Braves24 - May 4, 2010
We need an 'All in your head' stat.
Or perhaps a ‘pressing too hard’. Well done, though. I’ve always had a soft spot for him (he’s our own little David Eckstein grit player! YAY!), but he really needs to pull out of it if Schafer storms out of the gate.
I do have one question: could you give us the formula you used to translate GB/FB/LD rate into AVG/OBP/SLG? I’m interested to see how much better LD rate is than FB.
soup du jour - May 4, 2010
Question about babip?
Does this take into account how hard a ball is hit? Or is a weak grounder the same as a 1 hopper? A popup the same as a drive to the warning track?
bpk228480 - May 4, 2010
It doesn't take that into account
which is why I mentioned that he might be hitting the ball less hard… All of those plays count equally, but generally speaking they will even out over the year. Since Nate’s line-drive rate is more or less the same as his career rate, I doubt he’s hitting the ball with much less authority (maybe a bit less).
Jacob Peterson - May 4, 2010
Great Post!
I really hope Nate can get out this slump.
Last year, we sucked largely due to no power from the outfield and 1st base.
This year, 2/3 of the outfield isn’t looking much better, our 1st baseman is sucking, and our starting pitching isn’t as good.
Great. Just great.
jhf884 - May 5, 2010
Pitt concerns
I’m worried that his career numbers are skewed by his time with the PIrates. His breakout season occured at a relatively late age for a bad team. I know that we don’t look at a team’s W/L for our stats that much any more, but I remember the Braves sending out a beat up Morton for a lot of innings against the Pirates a couple of years ago. So maybe Nate’s a quad A guy who beat up a bunch of rag arms at PIttsburgh. When I watch his at bats I see as much. I hope that’s not the case, but I see three fourth outfielders for two starting spots. Bobby’s got a challenge here and I hope he still has enough on his fastball to make it work.
freekhalidelamin - May 5, 2010
It was last year against Reyes, from what I can gather
freekhalidelamin - May 5, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.