Opening Day lies just beyond the horizon, though the weather forecasts in many parts of the country don’t seem to want to pay attention. Over the last few weeks in this space, we took a position-by-position look at the ball-in-play (BIP) profiles of 2015 regulars and semi-regulars to gain some insight into their potential performance moving forward. Next, we’re going to take a similar approach with regard to starting pitchers, division by division. We’ll begin today with the NL East.

First, some ground rules. To come up with an overall player population roughly equal to one starting rotation per team, the minimum number of batted balls allowed with Statcast readings was set at 243. Pitchers will be listed with their 2015 division mates; those who were traded during the season will appear in the division in which they compiled the most innings. Pitchers are listed in “tru” ERA order. For those who have not read my previous articles on the topic, “tru” ERA is the ERA pitchers “should” have compiled based on the actual BIP frequency and authority they allowed relative to the league. Here we go:

Starting Pitcher BIP Profiles – NL East Name AVG MPH FB/LD MPH GB MPH POP % FLY % LD % GB % ADJ C K % BB % ERA – FIP – TRU – DeGrom 87.53 90.60 85.66 3.1% 31.6% 20.9% 44.4% 85 27.3% 5.1% 65 69 66 Scherzer 87.26 90.88 83.85 5.9% 39.5% 18.6% 36.0% 98 30.7% 3.8% 72 71 66 Harvey 87.74 90.35 85.91 3.5% 32.6% 17.9% 46.0% 83 24.9% 4.9% 69 78 68 Syndergaard 86.06 89.08 84.88 3.5% 30.1% 19.9% 46.5% 93 27.5% 5.1% 83 83 70 Strasburg 88.95 92.11 87.48 4.9% 29.4% 23.4% 42.2% 102 29.6% 5.0% 89 72 72 S.Miller 87.18 90.54 85.39 3.0% 31.1% 18.2% 47.7% 76 19.9% 8.5% 77 88 81 Hamels 88.16 91.33 86.30 3.8% 27.6% 20.9% 47.7% 105 24.4% 7.1% 94 89 89 Colon 89.07 92.05 86.77 2.8% 34.1% 20.8% 42.3% 101 16.7% 2.9% 107 98 95 Zimmermann 88.52 91.89 85.82 4.5% 31.8% 21.7% 42.0% 105 19.7% 4.7% 94 96 95 Niese 88.71 92.05 86.65 1.2% 23.5% 20.8% 54.5% 90 14.7% 7.1% 106 113 99 G.Gonzalez 88.58 92.28 85.99 1.2% 25.5% 19.5% 53.8% 105 22.3% 9.1% 97 78 99 Teheran 89.27 92.26 86.76 3.5% 32.8% 24.0% 39.7% 105 20.3% 8.7% 104 113 103 Roark 86.20 91.26 81.99 2.2% 28.4% 21.7% 47.8% 101 15.0% 5.6% 112 121 104 Latos 88.60 93.65 84.06 2.3% 29.6% 24.2% 43.9% 114 20.2% 6.5% 127 95 105 Koehler 89.98 93.58 87.98 2.5% 33.1% 18.4% 46.0% 99 17.1% 9.6% 105 116 107 A.Wood 87.92 91.00 85.76 2.4% 25.1% 23.0% 49.5% 107 17.4% 7.4% 98 95 109 Fister 88.22 91.04 85.89 1.2% 32.9% 21.3% 44.6% 106 14.0% 5.4% 107 117 111 Phelps 89.76 91.64 87.33 3.1% 32.1% 23.0% 41.8% 114 16.0% 6.9% 115 103 117 Harang 90.67 93.16 88.61 5.3% 38.4% 20.2% 36.1% 110 14.4% 6.8% 125 124 118 Wisler 90.66 93.40 86.89 5.9% 37.3% 23.2% 33.6% 118 15.1% 8.4% 121 126 128 J.Williams 89.13 92.57 85.99 2.3% 27.8% 22.8% 47.1% 121 13.4% 6.2% 149 134 129 W.Perez 90.32 93.69 87.96 1.1% 27.7% 20.3% 50.9% 126 14.2% 9.9% 123 125 141 AVERAGE 88.57 91.84 86.09 3.1% 31.0% 21.1% 44.7% 103 19.8% 6.6% 102 100 99

Most of the column headers are self explanatory, including average BIP speed (overall and by BIP type), BIP type frequency, K and BB rates, and traditional ERA -, FIP -, and “tru” ERA -. Each pitchers’ Adjusted Contact Score (ADJ C) is also listed. Again, for those of you who have not read my articles on the topic, Unadjusted Contact Score is derived by removing Ks and BBs from opposing hitters’ batting lines, assigning run values to all other events, and comparing them to a league average of 100. Adjusted Contact Score applies league-average production to each pitchers’ individual actual BIP type and velocity mix, and compares it to league average of 100.

Cells are also color coded. If a pitcher’s value is two standard deviations or more higher than average (the average of all players in the league, not just at the player’s position), the field is shaded red. If it’s one to two STD higher than average, it’s shaded orange. If it’s one-half to one STD higher than average, it’s shaded dark yellow. If it’s one-half to one STD less than average, it’s shaded blue. If it’s over one STD less than average, it’s shaded black. Ran out of colors at that point. On the rare occasions that a value is over two STD lower than average, we’ll mention it if necessary in the text.

Before we get to the pitchers, a couple words regarding year-to-year correlation of pitchers’ plate-appearance frequencies and BIP authority allowed. From 2013 to -15, ERA qualifiers’ K and BB rates and all BIP frequencies except for liner rate (.14 correlation coefficient) correlated very closely from year to year. The correlation coefficients for K% (.81), BB% (.66), and pop up (.53), fly ball (.76) and grounder (.86) rates are extremely high. While BIP authority correlates somewhat from year to year — FLY/LD authority is .37, grounder authority is 0.25 — it doesn’t correlate nearly as closely as frequency. Keep these relationships in mind as we move on to some random player comments.

Three of the top four pitchers listed are the Mets’ vaunted young guns. Jacob deGrom’s stellar K and BB rates, both over one full standard deviation better than league average, are the primary drivers of his excellence. His BIP frequency profile is actually quite vanilla: he’s the only NL East qualifier whose BIP frequencies are in the average range across the board. deGrom did manage fly-ball contact quite well last season, and this is one area which doesn’t necessarily correlate quite that well from year to year. He had the third-best Adjusted Contact Score in the division last year, and I wouldn’t consider him the third-best contact manager. The 2015 campaign was about as good as it can possibly get for deGrom; he’ll likely remain a well above-average starter moving forward, but I would expect someone else, perhaps a teammate, to inherit the NL East top spot in 2016.

Matt Harvey’s K/BB profile was nearly as exceptional as deGrom’s last season, but Harvey has some BIP frequency trends on which he might be able to hang his hat. His elevated pop-up rate ranked in the 71st percentile in 2015, and in the 73rd percentile in 2013, his previous qualifying season. While liner rates tend to fluctuate quite a bit, Harvey’s has been below league average in both of his qualifying seasons, and was way down in the 8th percentile in 2015. Some outliers, among hitters and pitchers, are able to consistently hit or prevent liners. With regard to authority, Harvey squelched fly-ball velocity to an even greater extent than deGrom. With a full year of post-Tommy John surgery performance under his belt, Harvey should be able to build on all fronts in 2016. His contact-management ability is real: in 2013, his Adjusted Contact Score was 80, close to his 2015 mark. Elite starters have great K/BB and contact management profiles; Harvey is one of them.

Then there’s the Mets’ third wheel, Noah Syndergaard, who has a chance to develop into the best of the bunch. His K rate was the best of the three, and his BB rate was right in the mix with them. His BIP frequencies were quite similar to Harvey’s, with an identical pop-up rate. His average FLY/LD authority was the lowest in the NL, over two full STD better than league average. The foundation is in place for that elite K/BB and contact management combination that would allow him to compete for award hardware moving forward. This is a pivotal season; the league has gotten a good look at him, and will make adjustments, and he needs to prove that his mechanics, which can be uneven at times, can hold up over a full season at the game’s highest level. I’m looking for a big year.

Talk about a dominant K/BB foundation: only Clayton Kershaw can match up with Max Scherzer’s. Truth be told, Scherzer needed a dominant K/BB ratio to reach the elite level, as his contact-management portfolio has been quite ordinary over the years. He’s always posted high pop-up rates, in the 96th percentile in 2015, and in the 88th percentile or higher in three of the last four years, but Scherzer has tended to allow some thunderous fly-ball authority in the past. That’s a problem when you allow as many fly balls as Scherzer does; his fly-ball rate was in the 93rd percentile in 2015, and has been in the 80th or higher in six of the last seven years. For the first time in his career, Scherzer’s overall BIP authority was over a half STD better than average. He just has to be an average contact manager to be an elite pitcher overall; with Adjusted Contact Scores of 95, 97 and 98 in the last three seasons, he has gotten there. Beware, however: when his stuff slips a bit, and hitters can more easily turn around his fastball, his decline could be swift, given his fly-ball volume.

Like Scherzer, Stephen Strasburg’s rise to all-around excellence was slowed a bit by early career contact-management issues. As usual, Strasburg’s K and BB rates were exceptional last season, and he finally began to show signs of improvement on the contact-management front. In 2014, Strasburg’s average authority allowed was over a full STD worse than league average, and he posted an Adjusted Contact Score of 113. While he again allowed hitters to square the ball up at an irritatingly high level in 2015, with a liner rate allowed in the 89th percentile — the third time in four years in the 62nd or higher — his pop-up rate did explode into the 88th percentile, and his average authority allowed dropped into the average range. If he can cut that liner rate, a Strasburg with a high pop-up rate can actually be a somewhat above average contact manager, which combined with his K/BB foundation, is a scary prospect.

Shelby Miller is no longer a Brave, and will take his act to the NL West with the Diamondbacks this season. Miller posted the best Adjusted Contact Score in the NL East last season; only Jake Arrieta was better in the entire league. There was a lot of good fortune in that 76 Adjusted Contact Score, however. He squelched contact in the air quite well, though some regression should be expected there. He has shown a skill for limiting liner rates throughout his career, but he was way down in the 10th percentile there in 2015; expect some upward bounce there as well. He became more of a ground-ball pitcher last season; on balance, that’s a good thing, though his pop-up rate did take a major hit. Miller is an average at best K/BB guy with marginally above average contact management skills. Expect a “tru” ERA much closer to 100 in 2016.

Cole Hamels also moves to a new division, the AL West, from day one in 2016. While still an above-average starter, Hamels has been slowly, almost imperceptibly drifting downward in the last couple seasons. The reason it has been somewhat imperceptible is that it has largely been due to contact management. His pop-up rate remains above average, but that’s his only standout BIP frequency trend. His liner rate allowed has been in the 60th percentile or higher in each of the last three seasons, and his overall authority allowed was in the average range for the second straight year following five consecutive better-than-average campaigns. Hamels is a league-average contact manager who desperately needs to retain his high K rate to remain an upper echelon starter.

Jordan Zimmermann also departs the NL East in 2016, signing a lucrative deal with the Tigers. His two biggest plusses are his very low BB rate and his significant pop-up tendency, up in the eighth percentile. There are some warning signs, however. The spike in his K rate in 2014 turned out to be a one-year blip, as it slipped back into the average range — in a non-DH league — in 2015. Zimmermann’s authority levels allowed have typically been in the average range, so we’re looking at essentially an average-range contact manager overall. The Tigers very well could be paying over $20 million per year on a very close to league-average pitcher, a high-floor, low-ceiling type.

Jon Niese also moves on in 2016, to the NL Central’s Pirates. Their pitching coach, Ray Searage, has worked wonders with many club acquisitions, and has a lot to work with in Niese. The one weakness is pretty glaring; that very low K rate doesn’t offer much margin for error with regard to contact management. That said, his fairly extreme grounder rate, in the 88th percentile last season, is a huge positive. Just two seasons ago, his overall authority allowed was over a full STD better than league average. At worst, the Pirates have a league-average starter on their hands; account for the Searage factor, and he could be somewhat better than that.

Is Gio Gonzalez transitioning into a ground-ball pitcher? He traded away some Ks and pop ups for some grounders last season, and the overall impact wasn’t very positive. His FIP loves all of those additional ground balls, but doesn’t recognize all of the lost pop ups. Gonzalez has never been the most precise hurler, or the best repeater of mechanics. My fear is that he is going to wind up lost halfway between his past and present self, with his ever-present higher than average BB rate still in place. He’s likely traded away his ceiling for a more predictable league-average starting-pitcher portfolio.

The 2015 campaign was pretty much a write off for Julio Teheran, whose development stagnated in the Braves’ lost season. The largest concern is the negative trend in both his K and BB rates; from the 79th to 68th to 55th percentile in Ks, and from the 23rd to 33rd to 73rd percentile in BBs. His BB rate ballooned by a full 50% last season. What was recently a go-to pop-up tendency — in the 98th percentile in 2014 — ameliorated to the 68th last season, and his liner rate spiked into the 93rd percentile in 2015 after being better than average the previous two years. I don’t think he’s hurt; this kid is simply too good to continue this fade. Expect the liner rate to shrink significantly; if the higher BB rate was a fluke, Teheran will shoot to near the top of this list in 2016.

Tanner Roark is actually a pretty neat pitcher, even if his stuff pales in comparison to the rest of the Nationals’ rotation. He’ll never be a big K guy, but he won’t give away walks, either, so it all comes down to contact management, an area where he has some clear upside. No starter in the NL East allowed weaker grounder contact last season; he’s the only pitcher above with grounder authority over two STD weaker than average. His grounder frequency is substantial enough that his overall authority allowed was way down in the Syndergaard zone. Like teammate Gonzalez, he swapped pop ups for grounders in 2016, but in Roark’s fifth starter/swingman role, locking in league-average performance as a result is actually a welcome development.

Mat Latos‘ 2015 season was a disaster, and he’ll give it another whirl as a member of the White Sox in 2016. While the difference between perception and reality with regard to Latos isn’t as large as the difference between his 2015 127 ERA- and 95 FIP-, there are a couple of reasons for optimism. First, that unsightly liner rate has nowhere to go but down; from 2010-13, he never posted a higher than league-average liner rate. Secondly, his minuscule 2015 grounder-authority level, third best among NL East qualifiers, is something to build upon. A healthy Latos is more of a 100 Adjusted Contact Score guy, and even if premium K rates are a thing of the past, league-average-ish performance could be in store, at a bargain price.

The fences are coming in at Marlins Park. This is a good thing for Marcell Ozuna and Christian Yelich, but a very bad thing for Tom Koehler, who allows hard contact of all types. His K/BB foundation is below average to begin with, so any further contact-management complications could be career-threatening. His low liner rate, in the 12th percentile, kept him afloat last season, and though he has never allowed a higher than average seasonal liner rate, regression should be expected there as well. That would certainly push his Adjusted Contact Score over 100, and his “tru” ERA into the 110+ range. He’s a tough kid who will have a tough mission in his “new” environs.

Alex Wood was dispatched westward to the Dodgers last season. Which is real, the 2014 or 2015 Wood? He was superior across the board in 2014, with better K and BB rates and superior contact-management metrics. His liner rate surged and his overall authority allowed deteriorated last season. Wood’s mechanics are a bit funky, and perhaps are having a cumulative effect on his stuff. It’s show-me time in 2016. I’m not counting upon ongoing above-average performance from Wood until I see extended glimpses of his 2014 stuff.

I can certainly see why the Astros would take a chance on Doug Fister. After all, he walks no one, and posted an exceptional 77 Adjusted Contact Score as recently as 2014. His margin for error evaporated that season as his K rate cratered, and in 2015, the pop ups went away as well. Fister is the only hurler listed above with a higher-than-average fly-ball rate, and lower-than-average pop-up rate. To me, this is a fluke, and the pop ups are coming back. That version of Fister is a marginally better-than-average contact manager whose “tru” ERA should be around league average in 2015.

Among the flotsam at the bottom of the NL East list, one guy to watch is the Braves’ Matthew Wisler. He’s still a pup at 23, flashed excellence in the minor leagues, and has already displayed an elite pop-up tendency in his brief major-league career. That’s all I’ve got for positives to date at the MLB level, however. His control needs to be above average, likely by a significant amount, for him to succeed, and it simply wasn’t in 2015. He allowed tons of fly balls, which is fine, but the authority was loud, which isn’t. To make matters worse, his liner rate was in the 86th percentile. A more precise Wisler can cut the walks and limit fly-ball authority, and develop into a league-average starter in the intermediate term, with potential future upside above that level.