[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Batting Average per ball in play isnt a stat used to judge pitchers. It is a stat to help determine if a pitcher may or may not have had some luck go his way and it can be used for other reasons to help neutralize pitching stats.

That's what I mean when I say a stat is tool, and a tool must be used correctly.

No one is arguing that good pitchers dont force hitters to make less solid contact. There is actually is a metric for "solid contact" and its called LD%. The evidence is out there that how solid of contact a hitter makes at the MLB level really makes very little difference in overall pitching productivity because they are all very similar in that regard.

Which makes sense because guys who get shelled don't last in the majors. However, many games come down to one or two key at bats. Even if the better pitcher induces two more poorly hit balls per game, that very well may be two weak ground outs or pop ups in those key at bats as opposed to solid hit shots.

Evidence supports low walks, high strikeouts and low home run rates is the best way for a pitcher to be effective. Again many of us realize these are just stats supported by numerous years of MLB stats. As far as I know pitchers at lower levels of baseball can get outs a more effective way than striking batters out.

Low walks, high Ks, and low home runs are the recipe for success at any level, no doubt about it. But not every pitcher has the talent to get those high K totals and there is historical evidence that supports the notion that high K totals are not necessarily a key ingredient. You can have relatively low K's per 9 as long as you keep your walks to a bare minimum and keep the ball in the park. So while high K's are nice, they are not as essential as low walks. Even low home runs are not as vital. Many HOF pitchers gave up an inordinate amout of HRs because they threw a lot of strikes. But they gave up solo home runs because they didn't walk anyone and knuckled down with runners on base.

The best thing about newer metrics is you can know well in advance that Jair Jurrjens or Clay Bucholtz had fluky seasons. A pitcher that gets few strikeouts, walks the league average, and gives up home runs at a league average but has a .225 BABIP against him will eventually be exposed as you can see with the 2 examples from above.

True. Their walks and home runs allowed would be red flags alone.

As Goody pointed out below Vargas is a pitcher that does decent for a player of his skill set at home because he is a flyball pitcher that plays his home games in a huge park. I suppose it could be debated on whether or not he is using some "craft" to make players hit long fly balls against him or if he is lucky for playing his home games in that huge park but the point remains the same in that he really isnt a good pitcher. His road splits are nasty and he was awful until getting to play half of his home games in a pitchers park.

With a pitcher like Vargas, the road/home splits are all you need to know. A chart of where balls are hit off of him would be another very useful tool. Assuming that distribution of where balls are hit will not change if he played for someone else, you can make a very good estimation of where those balls will end up in a hitter's park. Years ago the Cubs signed Dave Smith as a free agent. Smith pitched half his games in the Astrodome which was a pitcher's park if there ever was one. Once he got to Wrigley his 75 mph fastball and junk pitches ended up in the Wrigley bleachers instead of being long noisy outs in the Dome.

As a former pitcher myself this goes against everything I was taught as well. This is why I am using the "at the MLB level" defense. I fully understand in college baseball a good pitcher will be able to get average hitters out on location and keeping them off balance. I think at the MLB level with players being so fast and the talent level being so high the numbers just sort of make this all work. Too much evidence is supporting this theory.

I am not sure if its been tested but I would speculate DIPS at the college or single A level would conflict with the MLB findings.

It's a hypothesis worth testing.

I would only add that there is no historical MLB evidence that would suggest that pitchers who rely on craft and guile and pitch to contact (relatively speaking) have been less successful than pure power pitchers. So that means those crafty pitchers must be doing something right to still be successful. That gets back to my "watch a game" statement. You see pitchers tie hitters in knots and getting weak grounders and pop ups all game long with hits scattered in between, and give their team a chance to win when all is said and done even if they didn't pile up strike outs. And if you watch a lot of games you can only conclude that ability to give their team a chance to win is a repeatable skill by the best pitchers. That does not mean they do the same thing every game. The formula is different every time the pitcher takes the mound.