The All-Star break is beckoning as we come down the homestretch of our position-by-position look at hitter contact quality. We will again use granular ball-in-play data such as BIP frequencies, exit speed and launch angle to perform the analysis. Two positions to go. Last time, it was center fielders; today, it’s the right fielders’ turn.

The data examined today runs through June 23. Players are separated by league, and are listed in Adjusted Production order. Adjusted Production expresses, on a scale where 100 equals average, what a hitter “should have” produced based on the exit speed/launch angle of each ball put in play. Each player’s Adjusted Contact Score, which weeds out the strikeouts and walks and states what each player should have produced on BIP alone, is also listed. Here goes:

AL RF BIP Profiles Name Avg MPH FLY MPH LD MPH GB MPH POP% FLY% LD% GB% ADJ C K% BB% wRC+ ADJ PR Pull% JD.Martinez 92.1 94.9 96.1 85.4 1.6% 36.6% 21.5% 40.3% 196 24.2% 9.5% 133 163 40.3% Trumbo 94.5 96.6 98.0 93.8 6.0% 35.1% 18.8% 40.1% 183 26.6% 6.3% 136 138 39.1% Reddick 89.4 86.5 91.5 90.9 1.6% 30.7% 22.6% 45.2% 115 13.3% 10.9% 132 136 36.8% Sano 94.6 98.4 94.9 88.0 1.8% 44.6% 23.6% 30.0% 201 33.6% 13.7% 115 135 35.5% S. Smith 90.1 93.7 93.3 86.3 3.4% 27.4% 19.9% 49.3% 118 17.6% 12.0% 116 130 40.8% Calhoun 88.7 88.9 91.4 87.6 1.9% 38.4% 24.5% 35.2% 116 18.5% 9.7% 127 120 41.9% Bautista 93.0 93.6 98.2 91.6 8.0% 34.6% 18.1% 39.4% 91 17.1% 16.8% 121 119 51.1% Mazara 86.9 85.9 93.8 83.8 2.9% 27.6% 25.7% 43.8% 110 16.7% 6.5% 102 112 35.7% Springer 90.3 92.4 99.4 85.7 1.8% 27.9% 17.4% 53.0% 111 22.8% 10.9% 120 106 40.6% Betts 91.5 90.7 94.4 91.8 4.1% 30.7% 19.3% 45.9% 97 14.0% 6.1% 121 105 39.0% Souza 91.3 91.6 97.0 88.0 3.1% 25.4% 26.2% 45.4% 176 35.3% 7.3% 108 104 51.2% Eaton 89.5 86.7 91.3 90.2 0.9% 19.0% 18.6% 61.5% 85 14.5% 8.7% 109 98 33.1% Chisenhall 87.5 85.6 89.6 88.0 1.6% 33.6% 25.6% 39.2% 83 15.5% 8.9% 105 95 37.3% A. Hicks 88.7 90.6 93.1 85.8 3.5% 31.8% 15.5% 49.1% 79 17.4% 7.1% 52 83 44.4% Orlando 87.9 85.1 90.6 88.5 3.4% 27.1% 22.0% 47.5% 104 22.8% 2.4% 125 83 25.4% AVERAGE 90.4 90.7 94.2 88.4 3.0% 31.4% 21.3% 44.3% 124 20.7% 9.1% 115 115 39.5%

Most of the column headers are self-explanatory, including average BIP speed (overall and by BIP type), BIP type frequency, K and BB rates, wRC+ and Adjusted Production, which incorporates the exit speed/angle data. Each hitter’s Adjusted Contact Score (ADJ C) is also listed. Adjusted Contact Score applies league-average production to each hitter’s individual actual BIP type and velocity mix, and compares it to league average of 100.

Cells are also color-coded. If a hitter’s value is two standard deviations or more higher than average, 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.

It should be noted that individual hitters’ BIP frequency and authority figures correlate quite well from year to year, with one notable exception. As with pitchers, individual hitters’ liner rates fluctuate quite significantly from year to year, for all but a handful of hitters with a clear talent (or lack thereof) for squaring up the baseball.

Projecting performance based on BIP speed/angle opens us up to a couple biases that we didn’t need to address when evaluating pitchers. Pitchers face a mix of pull and opposite field-oriented hitters, more and less authoritative hitters, etc. Hitters are who they are each time they step up to the plate, and we must choose whether or not to address their individual tendencies.

I have adjusted the projected ground-ball performance for hitters who meet two criteria. First, they’ve recorded over five times as many grounders to the pull side than to the opposite field and, second, they exhibit a resulting deficiency in actual versus projected grounder performance. Such hitters’ projected grounder performance was capped at their actual performance level. Such hitters’ Adjusted Contact Scores and Adjusted Production figures are in red fonts.

I have decided not to adjust for the other primary factor that can skew actual versus projected performance based on exit speed/angle — namely, player speed. We’re attempting to assess hitter contact quality here; let’s keep speed/athleticism separate. As a result, we’ll see some slow, hard-hitting-to-all-fields sluggers overperform on this metric, and some more athletic players underperform. Contact quality is just part of offensive baseball; let’s attempt to isolate and evaluate it on its own.

J.D. Martinez currently resides on the disabled list, but a strong case can be made that his already strong overall numbers don’t fully reflect the damage he did to the baseball in the first half. Martinez hits a lot of fly balls, and he hits them very hard. He’s recorded a .367 AVG-1.083 SLG (146 Unadjusted Production) on fly balls, but his authority suggests a much higher 246 adjusted mark. He has only gone 7-for-19 on fly balls between 100-103 mph, well below league average. He’s an extreme puller on the ground, earning him a penalty, but despite that has posted a 196 overall Adjusted Production mark to date, tied with Danny Valencia for the second-best AL mark. There’s really no additional upside, and his risk profile is at best average, but I bet Houston wishes they could have him back.

Mark Trumbo is what he is: a guy who mashes the baseball while running a below-average K/BB profile and providing little to no defensive value. This year we are seeing Trumbo’s peak. He is absolutely detonating the ball in the air. How does a 367 Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score grab you? Plus, he performs well on grounders due both to authority and his ability to use both sides of the field. In the past, he has struggled to elevate the baseball with any regularity, but in 2015-16, his fly-ball rate has ramped up. With his K and BB rates, he needs to run a huge contact score to be productive, but he seems to have found the formula.

Then we have the antithesis of Trumbo in Josh Reddick. Impressive K and BB rates afford hitters significant margin for error with regard to contact authority. Reddick does not hit the ball particularly hard, but he does smoke his grounders, and performs well on them (188 Unadjusted vs. 130 Adjusted Contact Score) as he sprays the ball around and avoids overshifts. Expect some negative regression in his liner rate, but he remains a safe, high-floor, modest-ceiling option moving forward.

What happens when you inflate the positives and negatives of a Mark Trumbo to a cartoonish level? Miguel Sano happens. No one in either league has an average fly-ball velocity higher than Sano. His fly-ball rate is maxed out and his liner rate is due for some negative regression, but he has maintained a very low pop-up rate for a power hitter. The result is a massive 201 Adjusted Contact Score on all BIP, best in the AL. And he needs every bit of it, as his K rate is out of control. The Twins are still trying to figure out where he fits in the field and in the lineup, but his power ceiling is as high as any youngster in either league.

Seth Smith is a quietly effective craftsman, albeit one who gets the vast majority of his at-bats with the platoon advantage. He’s actually been quite unlucky in the air (107 Unadjusted vs. 178 Adjusted Contact Score) and on the line (68 vs. 102). Smith is actually quite similar to Reddick, though the latter keeps his overall numbers up despite facing same-handed pitching more often, while the former has a bit more power upside on a per-at-bat basis.

Kole Calhoun is apparently one of the few who can maintain high liner rates on a long-term basis. By far, this is his foremost strength: his authority on all BIP types is quite ordinary, and his fly-ball rate is about maxed out, with nowhere to go but down. An average K rate, a low BB rate and a high liner rate is still enough to keep him in the 100-110 wRC+ range moving forward, which should keep the Angels happy.

Yes, that’s a 91 in the overall Adjusted Contact Score column for Jose Bautista. Yes, he still hits all BIP types quite hard, but he has two massive flaws that are very difficult to overcome. First, he has always been one of the game’s pop-up-rate leaders, and has been able to overcome that weakness with brute force in the past. Secondly, he is an extreme ground-ball puller, who has batted just .167 AVG-.208 SLG (59 Adjusted Contact Score) despite strong authority this season. His fly-ball authority is now just good, as opposed to great (112 Adjusted Contact Score). He has greatly improved his K and BB rates over time, allowing him to remain productive for his position, but it is now clear that his decline phase has begun in earnest.

Nomar Mazara has been one of the key drivers behind the Rangers’ first-half surge. His BIP authority has not been the reason why. He has a bunch of bloop fly-ball singles in his portfolio. In addition, his liner rate is very high, and begging for negative regression. Still, he’s 21, he hits his liners hard, and has made a ton of contact for a youngster. The future is extremely bright, though I wouldn’t be surprised to see some second-half struggles.

At the same time, George Springer’s profile shows good first-half fortune and plenty of room for future growth. Springer doesn’t hit his grounders very hard, but he has hit .275 AVG-.286 SLG (130 Unadjusted Contact Score) on them to date, way above his 90 adjusted mark. Looking ahead, he kills his fly balls (165 Adjusted Contact Score) and liners (127), and should see a major uptick in production once he learns to elevate the ball more frequently.

Why, you might ask, is Mookie Betts so far down the list? First, his counting stats are much more impressive than his rate stats to date. This guy’s on pace to amass nearly 800 plate appearances, believe it or not. Secondly, he’s massively overperformed on grounders, batting .343 AVG-.371 SLG (221 Unadjusted Contact Score), while his solid grounder authority supports just a 131 mark. He’s also gotten a bit of a Fenway boost on fly balls, though much smaller than those received by some of his teammates. The future is very bright: he hits all BIP types reasonably hard, never strikes out, and appears to possess the sixth tool, the ability to stay healthy.

Thumbnail comments on a couple others: Steven Souza Jr. is a lower-reward, higher-risk version of Miguel Sano, while Adam Eaton’s line would be much more at home in the center-field group, though his move to right field has made the White Sox better.

NL RF BIP Profiles Name Avg MPH FLY MPH LD MPH GB MPH POP% FLY% LD% GB% ADJ C K% BB% wRC+ ADJ PR Pull% Harper 90.7 89.1 97.3 89.2 3.9% 40.1% 14.8% 41.2% 105 17.3% 19.3% 129 137 38.9% Pence 91.5 93.6 96.8 88.2 2.8% 24.1% 18.6% 54.5% 130 18.8% 11.1% 139 135 31.0% Polanco 91.7 91.1 98.6 88.3 2.4% 31.4% 26.0% 40.2% 124 19.3% 12.0% 140 130 49.0% Markakis 92.1 89.1 95.6 92.9 1.7% 31.3% 21.1% 45.8% 105 14.3% 11.4% 86 125 26.0% Piscotty 87.8 88.8 94.5 83.0 2.9% 32.4% 19.8% 44.9% 113 16.6% 10.0% 134 123 41.6% Kemp 89.2 92.4 92.3 84.0 1.3% 37.4% 20.4% 40.9% 144 23.2% 2.9% 103 115 46.1% C. Gonzalez 90.2 88.0 96.9 88.8 3.4% 27.5% 20.8% 48.3% 128 23.3% 6.4% 120 109 35.1% Bruce 89.4 92.3 93.2 84.6 2.5% 39.1% 23.4% 35.0% 116 20.7% 6.5% 136 107 43.6% G. Stanton 96.0 95.1 98.2 96.9 4.4% 35.3% 15.4% 44.9% 159 34.0% 11.7% 101 107 40.4% Granderson 88.5 91.0 90.5 84.2 2.0% 39.9% 17.7% 40.4% 94 22.4% 9.9% 105 92 46.2% Heyward 87.2 83.4 89.8 90.4 5.2% 23.6% 20.9% 50.3% 77 19.7% 10.4% 82 84 38.0% Drury 90.7 92.3 93.1 91.0 3.2% 25.7% 20.1% 50.9% 90 21.2% 4.6% 99 80 45.3% Puig 91.6 94.1 94.9 92.2 11.6% 27.9% 15.6% 44.9% 89 22.0% 4.4% 78 78 41.9% R. Flores 84.6 85.2 82.1 86.4 2.5% 22.7% 17.6% 57.1% 65 21.2% 10.6% 66 71 39.3% Bourjos 87.9 90.6 91.5 87.3 5.6% 23.8% 16.7% 54.0% 66 25.4% 3.2% 58 52 47.0% AVERAGE 89.9 90.4 93.7 88.5 3.7% 30.8% 19.3% 46.2% 107 21.3% 9.0% 105 103 40.6%

Ah, Bryce Harper. If you’re a glass-half-full type, you look at his incredible walk rate and his puny liner rate, and say just watch out once the latter regresses. If your glass is half empty, you note his extreme grounder-pulling tendency at the age of 23, his maxed out fly-ball rate and relatively ordinary authority in the air. A balanced approach recognizes his historically advanced approach for his age, while noting the many areas needing improvement in his game. His floor is higher than many players’ ceilings, but he must stop focusing on pulling and power to fully tap into his potential.

Unfortunately, Hunter Pence is once again on the DL. When healthy, Pence is the type of hitter who should age very gracefully. He hits all BIP types very hard, his power is masked a bit by his home park and his relatively low fly-ball rate, he has retained his athleticism into his 30s, and keeps defenses honest by moving the ball around. His Adjusted Fly Ball Contact Score of 203 trails only Giancarlo Stanton among NL RFs.

Gregory Polanco’s all-around game has grown substantially this season. His BB rate is way up, and he is hitting the ball in the air with much greater authority. He has had some good fortune in the air (140 Unadjusted vs. 90 Adjusted Contact Score), as he has hit a few just enough homers down the line. There are a couple reasons for short-term concern: his liner rate is very high and invites regression, and he has shown signs of becoming a little pull-happy on the ground, though not quite enough to earn a penalty. In the big picture, he’s a hit-before-power type who should grow into plenty of power.

One can make a case that Nick Markakis has been among the unluckiest regulars in the majors this season. He’s hit his liners and grounders much harder than MLB average, but has underperformed (88 and 64 Unadjusted vs. 108 and 146 Adjusted Contact Scores) on both. His K, BB and pop-up rates are all exemplary, and he uses the opposite field so well that a reverse shift must almost be considered. He’s much better than his traditional numbers suggest.

Stephen Piscotty’s BIP authority levels are quite nondescript, but a low K rate serves as a strong foundation of his offensive game. He has benefited from some bloop fly-ball hits, and some good fortune on grounders (132 Unadjusted vs. 81 Adjusted Contact Score). He does hit his liners hard, so there is some hope for additional power down the road. On balance, however, I see him as more of a safe, high-floor type than a potential star.

It’s really difficult to be productive with a 2.9% walk rate, no matter how hard you hit the baseball. This is Matt Kemp’s dilemma. The positives? He hits the ball in the air a lot, and hits it hard, with a low pop-up rate. He hits his grounders weakly, however, the vast majority of them to the pull side, inviting overshifts and placing a hard cap on his batting average. He has been a bit unlucky on liners (.592 AVG-.714 SLG, 75 Unadjusted vs. 100 Adjusted Contact Score), so his raw numbers are a bit understated. There’s more risk than potential reward here, however.

Carlos Gonzalez‘ wRC+ figure as of June 23 already incorporates the Coors Field fly-ball effect. It does not, however, take his good fortune on grounders (.333 AVG-.368 SLG, 212 Unadjusted vs. 115 Adjusted Contact Score) into account. Gonzalez is a nice offensive player, but has never truly been a star. Any club that pays dearly for him and takes him out of his home-park cocoon will quickly learn this fact.

Jay Bruce has been on a bit of a roll since the June 23 cutoff, and is seen in some circles as one of the most desirable trade-deadline targets. I would urge caution. His fly-ball rate is maxed out, his liner rate is screaming for negative regression, and his performance on fly balls (.425 AVG-1.274 SLG, 200 Unadjusted vs. 110 Adjusted Contact Score) has been padded by some just-enough homers right down the line. He very narrowly avoided an excessive grounder-pulling penalty, as well. In short, the first half of 2016 has been an absolute best-case scenario for Bruce, and a suitor for his services is likely to be buying regression.

Yes, Giancarlo Stanton destroy baseballs. As stated earlier when discussing Sano and others, that doesn’t matter much when you’re running strikeout rates of 30% or higher. Like Bruce, Stanton also narrowly avoided a grounder-pulling penalty, which would crush his projection. Yes, Stanton’s liner rate is likely to positively regress moving forward, but he truly does stand at a career crossroads. Does he make the adjustment, as Mike Schmidt did in the late 1970s, or does he continue to be picked apart by pitchers as his natural tools eventually begin to ebb? Stay tuned.

At the beginning of the season, I tabbed Curtis Granderson as the NL player most likely to decline. Yes, he’s hit some homers, but that is literally all he can do offensively. His fly-ball rate is as high as they come, and many of his homers are of the just-enough variety right down the line. He’s batting just .143 AVG-.143 SLG on grounders (36 Unadjusted Contact Score), and receives an extreme pulling penalty. He’s basically Raul Ibanez in his last productive season.

The Cubs’ great start has obscured the mess that Jason Heyward has been offensively to this point. Put it this way: Erick Aybar has hit his fly balls harder than Heyward, whose fly-ball authority is over two STD lower than the NL average. His pop-up rate is as high as ever, and even his K rate has bounced up a bit this season. The Cubs were buying much more than his bat, of course, but this level of production simply isn’t going to get it done.

Yes, Yasiel Puig has looked much better since his recent return from the DL, but work remains to be done. It all begins with that outrageous pop-up rate. It’s higher than the next two highest right-field pop-up rates combined, and exceeded only by Todd Frazier among all MLB regulars. Even more peculiar is the fact that he couples it with a rather low fly-ball rate. I’m still a believer in Puig: the liner rate should bounce up, the pop-up rate should moderate somewhat, and a higher fly-ball rate could yield a major power spike.