Steve McCatty On Strikeouts

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I could write an impassioned debate but it simply suffices to say that what you think you know is not correct and has been proven as such.

No sir, what I know about pitching is correct and that is not based on advanced statistics. I know that from pitching in hundreds of games in my life. McCracken and the others, as far as I know, have never tried to pitch through a game with the intent on allowing fewer runs than what their team scored on offense and winning. Until he, or anyone else who hasn't tried to do that, has done it and done it successfully on a regular basis they can spare me their neat statistical studies telling me everything I know from personal experience as a pitcher is wrong.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

No sir, what I know about pitching is correct and that is not based on advanced statistics. I know that from pitching in hundreds of games in my life. McCracken and the others, as far as I know, have never tried to pitch through a game with the intent on allowing fewer runs than what their team scored on offense and winning. Until he, or anyone else who hasn't tried to do that, has done it and done it successfully on a regular basis they can spare me their neat statistical studies telling me everything I know from personal experience as a pitcher is wrong.

I am pretty sure your ancestors were Galileos jailers.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

I am pretty sure your ancestors were Galileos jailers.

That's the best you can do?

Let's talk the actual playing of the game of baseball. Ad hominum attacks are not my forte.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

That's the best you can do?

What exactly can I do? There are dozens of studies and mountains of data on the subject and then there is your opinion which is exactly counter to all of those studies and all of that mountain.
Your opinion consists of what you feel is correct and pitching at some level of the game.

I played baseball too and at one time I felt probably how you feel right now. The DIPS theory turned everything on it's head in terms of how we study pitchers.
When I first read it in the early 2000's I was shocked and felt that something I seemingly knew as being a skill could somehow be random chance.
But as I studied it more I realized that yes it was indeed correct. The evidence used in the study was too strong and the more I thought about it the more I realized it actually makes logical sense.

Even among good pitchers there was no repeatable ability to influence BABIP.
And it's slightly humorous that you would use Maddux as one of your examples since he was a primary pitcher used in the study. His BABIP was all over the place. Just like most pitchers.
For something to be a skill, there has to be an ability to reproduce it on a repeatable scale.


But your right. I have no argument.
But then again there is no argument that is effective against willful ignorance.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

What exactly can I do?

Lose the personal attacks, for starters.

There are dozens of studies and mountains of data on the subject and then there is your opinion which is exactly counter to all of those studies and all of that mountain.
Your opinion consists of what you feel is correct and pitching at some level of the game.

So let me get this straight: There are studies that prove that pitchers should exert as much energy as possible on every batter in the hopes of striking them out, and they'll not only last deep into games but have plenty of gas in the tank for the whole season? Because what McCatty and I are saying is that's a fool's errand. And if you want argue that a pitcher has no influence on whether or not he can or cannot induce pop ups or ground outs, that's it's all random luck, then there is no such thing as a skilled pitcher.

I played baseball too and at one time I felt probably how you feel right now. The DIPS theory turned everything on it's head in terms of how we study pitchers.

I already knew that when I had lousy fielders behind me (for instance) my numbers suffered. Little league managers know that about their pitchers.

When I first read it in the early 2000's I was shocked and felt that something I seemingly knew as being a skill could somehow be random chance.
But as I studied it more I realized that yes it was indeed correct. The evidence used in the study was too strong and the more I thought about it the more I realized it actually makes logical sense.

It makes logical math sense, but not baseball sense and that's two different things. A good pitcher controls the hitter's bat because the hitter does not know where the pitch is going and when it's going to get there. They swing early, late, over the ball, and under the ball. Pitchers who can make batters do that on a regular basis have what we call "skill". There is no statistical metric for that. The stats may "prove" that a pitcher's skill has no influence on whether or not a batted ball will be a hit, but in actual practice that's false and any nervous hitter who stood in the box against a savvy pitcher and no had idea where to swing and when at the next pitch will tell you that. Even if the pitcher doesn't get a strike out (which to McCracken is bad), far more often than not he'll get an out if all the hitter could do was stick the bat out to avoid a strike out and dribble the ball somewhere.

Even among good pitchers there was no repeatable ability to influence BABIP.
And it's slightly humorous that you would use Maddux as one of your examples since he was a primary pitcher used in the study. His BABIP was all over the place. Just like most pitchers.

Then I ask again, what made Maddux good? Other pitchers had better K/9 rates and others even better BB/9 rates. If it wasn't his skill in influencing how well a ball in play was going to be hit, what pray tell was it and why is he in the HOF and someone else isn't? All this tells me is that BABIP is not a reliable stat. It may be telling us something, but how good a pitcher is isn't it because for some strange reasons some pitchers get more outs from balls in play than others when they need them-and it sure as heck ain't dumb luck.

For something to be a skill, there has to be an ability to reproduce it on a repeatable scale.

And what is repeatable is not always easy to quantify. At best, if we use your definition, it can be said that the math whizzes who never played the game are yet to quantify qualities certain pitchers have that make them better than others.

But your right. I have no argument.
But then again there is no argument that is effective against willful ignorance.

Yes, I have demonstrated nothing but ignorance this entire thread. Try something else, like an argument from the standpoint of baseball instead of math.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

In both theory and practice, an out is an out. There are certain situations in close games where a strike out is the most desired outcome for a pitcher. But for the rest of the situations in baseball an out is out and the fewer pitches it takes to get an out the better.

But it's pretty simple really. An out is an out, but a strikeout is almost an guaranteed out, while a contact is not. Contact sometimes leads into horrible things.

And yes, going for contact would reduce pitch per plate appearance, but since contact sometimes don't result in outs, it would also increase plate appearances per game.

So the whole thing is a balancing act. I don't believe Steve McCatty really is preaching strikeouts are meaningless. I think his main point was more about how some players focused waaay too much on the strikeouts therefore missing the right balance. He also does have a point that there are ways to win with fewer strikeouts.

But to discredit strikeout or to miss the pros and cons of inducing contacts would be stupid. It's as stupid as thinking strikeout is all important.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

One other point.

That which is good for a batter is bad for a pitcher and visa versa.

Sabermaticians tell us that it's ok for a guy to strike out over 200 times in a season because an out is an out and as long as other numbers are good he can strike as many times as he wants (see Reynolds, Mark).

So if strike outs are not inherently bad for hitters, they serve no additional good inherent for the pitchers. An out is out.

Strike outs are definitely bad for hitters, and they are actually worse than a typical out even in some basic linear weight, because strike outs don't advance runners.

The point of "ok for a better to strike out over 200 times in a season" is as you said, if there are other good numbers to compensate for it.

And that's actually exactly the same for pitchers. If a pitcher can create enough outs without having to strikeout a lot of batters, it surely would be reflected by sabermetrics. It's just very very hard to do that, because as we just discussed, strikeouts are almost guaranteed outs, while contacts aren't. Walks are guaranteed safe, so walks are horrible.

Throughout baseball history, there have been many hitters that got a lot of strikeouts but also had great hitting stats to compensate for that. Many of those are power hitters.

You don't exactly find many low strikeout pitchers that has sustained success. You have to wonder why. Steve McCatty himself didn't really do all that well long term being a low strike out pitcher.

The problem isn't about sabermetrics discriminating pitchers from hitters. The problem is just certain make up of player ability are just unlikely.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

And if you agree that Maddux or anyone else isn't in the HOF on dumb luck 78% of the time, why is he there and not someone else? If the skill of the best pitchers had no bearing over the outcome of an at bat when the ball was put in play, which is the overwhelming majority of at bats, how did they do so well? And don't tell me about someone's statistical study. Speak to me as someone who either had to try to get a lineup out three times a game, or someone who was in a lineup trying to get a base hit three times a game.

I already told you why Maddux is perfect for this theroy. HE DIDN'T WALK ANYONE. Which is the other thing pitchers can control.

[JWay]

I think what Curve Ball Dave is missing is that, whatever ability pitchers have in avoiding getting smacked around is usually normalized by pitchers who throw meat, don't make the majors. All pitchers in the major leagues have to be able to avoid good contact on every pitch. Or they wouldn't make it.

So if you tend to give up a lot of homers or line drives. You're not going to make the major league rotation. Thus the numbers show that the number of guys who pitch in the majors, there effectiveness to avoid great contact is no more 2-3% better/worse than the other guys over a season.

But the numbers could be liars. :P

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by JWay

I think what Curve Ball Dave is missing is that, whatever ability pitchers have in avoiding getting smacked around is usually normalized by pitchers who throw meat, don't make the majors. All pitchers in the major leagues have to be able to avoid good contact on every pitch. Or they wouldn't make it.

No I got that. But you've made my point. You said that pitchers do have the ability to avoid getting hit from pillar to post. Some are better at it than others. The good ones stick, the others don't. In real terms the difference between a win and a loss comes down to a few pitches a game.

My point is, to sum, pitchers do have control over how well a ball is put in play. If hitters can't make square contact, and poorly hit balls almost always result in outs, then in reality as opposed to the world of math it makes no difference whether you strike the guy out or not-certain circumstances excepted. And because there are specific circumstances where the K is the most desired outcome for a pitcher, the smart ones know when to dial it up for a K and when not to.

All of the above is I what call "skill". Arguing that because there is no stat for it it must not exist is a misunderstanding of both stats and the game of baseball.

[JWay]

Right, but the difference for avoiding contact is less than 3% for the best and worse isn't even really reliable. The difference is easily attributed to park factors and defense.

It is a "skill", but the guys who stay in the major leagues to pitch, all relatively have the same skill. You either have it or you don't.

[Jason Moyer]

Using Maddux as an example of a pitcher being able to influence the number of hits he gives up is kind of funny when he gave up 8.5 hits per nine innings over his career, which is not a very good figure compared to other hall of fame pitchers. Roger Clemens, by contrast, gave up 7.7, Pedro gave up 7.1. Maddux was successful because he had 9 seasons where his K/BB ratio was over 4, including a peak of 8.85 which is ridiculous. We tend to not think of him as a strikeout pitcher, but he had 3 seasons where he was in the top 10 in K/9.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

All of the above is I what call "skill". Arguing that because there is no stat for it it must not exist is a misunderstanding of both stats and the game of baseball.

If it is a skill, it is repeatable. Avoiding hits on balls put into play is not a repeatable skill. BAIP fluctuates from year-to-year from month-to-month for EVERY pitcher*.


*- Knuckleball and trick pitch pitchers actually do not follow this

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

If it is a skill, it is repeatable. Avoiding hits on balls put into play is not a repeatable skill. BAIP fluctuates from year-to-year from month-to-month for EVERY pitcher*.

Only if accept BABIP as the only valid measure. Otherwise you're saying pitchers have no skill and it's all luck.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Only if accept BABIP as the only valid measure. Otherwise you're saying pitchers have no skill and it's all luck.

Obviously pitching skills impacts strikeouts and walks the most, and other aspects of the game too just not as much.

You forced yourself into this "no skill and all luck" situation by trying to reject the part of the game pitchers have the most impact on, and focus only on the small things.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Only if accept BABIP as the only valid measure. Otherwise you're saying pitchers have no skill and it's all luck.

I am going to say this one more time, and after that, I am just going to assume you don't care to have an honest discussion.

LUCK is only one of the factors. Defensive Ability, Defensive placement, weather conditions, park factors and hitter skill are all factors when the ball is put into to play. They all have more control on whether it becomes a hit or not. It isn't JUST luck. I have not once said it was. You happen to be the only one who keeps saying then it is JUST luck.

The only true repeatable skill for a pitcher is striking people out and avoiding base on balls.

[rudel.dietrich]

As I said before. One of the core tenants of the OOTP engine is DIPS. So if you don't believe it in, then your probably playing the wrong simulation baseball game.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

I am going to say this one more time, and after that, I am just going to assume you don't care to have an honest discussion.

An honest discussion of what, baseball or math? I'm trying to discuss the former while you are fixated on the latter.

LUCK is only one of the factors. Defensive Ability, Defensive placement, weather conditions, park factors and hitter skill are all factors when the ball is put into to play.

That's been known for decades. Anyone involved in baseball in the 1930s knew that you couldn't evaluate a pitcher playing in the Baker Bowl the same way you could one at Griffith Stadium (for instance). That's just baseball, not math.

They all have more control on whether it becomes a hit or not. It isn't JUST luck. I have not once said it was. You happen to be the only one who keeps saying then it is JUST luck.

You are saying the pitcher cannot control how well a ball is put in play. You've either never pitched, never hit, or both. That's baseball, not math.

The only true repeatable skill for a pitcher is striking people out and avoiding base on balls.

No, the "repeatable skill" for a pitcher is to give his team a chance to win the game. When all is said and done that is his only job, not to generate statistics that may or may not be favorable in an analysis. What you are arguing is math. You are treating statsitical studies, which are nothing but a series of assumptions, as the Gospel Truth. You are completely dismissing the notion that a pitcher has the ability to cause hitters to mistime pitches and swing in the wrong spot, both of which have a profound affect on how well the ball will be hit and where and therefore become hits. And you are dismissing this because there is no study that can measure it, as if only that which can be measured statisically must exist.

I've asked more than once to discuss BASEBALL, the actual act of playing the game. You keep coming back with mathmatical theory. I and thousands of other pitchers didn't use math to help our teams win games on the mound, we used our skill. If you or McCraken can't measure that, that's not our problem.

[Kobie]

Screw your verifiable empirical data! It's about baseball, man, not math.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Kobie

Screw your verifiable empirical data! It's about baseball, man, not math.

Screw the sum total of over a hundred years of experience and knowledge compiled by all of the players who took the pitcher's mound at the start of a game with the goal of giving their team a chance to win. Math whizzes who never put on a pair of spikes know more about pitching than we do.

It's about math, man, not baseball.

Let's replace pitchers, as their they are only as good as the number of strikeouts they can compile and hitters they can avoid walking, and replace them with unskilled pitching machines that can fling the ball to home plate and strike out 7 batters per 9 and won't walk anyone. Pitching machines won't get tired or complain when they're pulled from the game.