Why pitch counts are bad

[Carlton]

Ok all great points, from the ones I saw (thank goodness for ignore feature)think this has run it's course as it usually happens here, it's going from the topic at hand to what it usually devolves to "I have nothing to add, but I will post to at least argue"

Unless someone has other points on the topic?

If not, I've stated my main points and replied to the posts that fairly questioned my points. So I'm out

[swoboda]

Did anyone make this point? If money drives decisions related to who plays and how much someone plays, and if high priced starting pitchers are going to be strictly limited on the number of pitches they throw, then stop the practice of wasting pitches . It's ridiculous to throw a ball 2 feet off of the plate when the pictcher is ahead in the count. A starting pitcher can waste 20 pitches in a game. Without wasting pictches that SP could last another inning or two even with the pitch count

[Syd Thrift]

Are wasted pitches really wasted in that sense though? A few things:

1. A sizeable amount of the time, a guy protecting the plate on an 0-2 count will in fact go after a ball a foot out of the strike zone and either whiff or hit an easily catchable ball. Those instances aren't wasted at all.

2. Often, too, a so-called wasted pitch will actually be setting the batter up for something either on the next pitch or perhaps further in the game. Say a pitcher throws a fastball that misses the corner by half a foot, then on the very next pitch throws a slider which comes out looking like it's just a slower version of that same exact fastball but then nips back into he plate at the last second. Without that first pitch, the second is just a breaking ball.

3. I think you may be overestimating the amount of control most pitchers have. For instance, a lot of breaking pitches aren't really aimed at all except that there's a general desire to get them over the plate. If a pitcher feels that his curve is his out pitch but snaps it off on an 0-2 count, the result could be something way in the dirt, but that doesn't mean that's where it was intended to go.

4. On the flip side, what looks like a wasted pitch to those of us watching from the centerfield camera or the stands looks entirely different from the batter's box. An extreme example I can think of was Randy Johnson facing the last batter of his no-hitter with the Mariners. He "climbed the ladder" on the hitter (kind of a version of point #2; basically, the idea is to throw a rising fastball a little bit higher and higher on each successive pitch - it works deadly well if the hitter in question can't ferret out the rise) and the last pitch, which the guy swung at, I should add, was literally over the batter's head. A wasted pitch? Try Out #27.

As noted, I do think that pitchers not using the classic windup so much anymore is one big thing that affects durability. You're not necessarily able to throw much faster when you wind up, but you do involve your entire body in the torque required to get the velocity you need rather than just your arm, and I have to think that for many pitchers, that's going to expose that wing to more abuse, regardless of the number of pitches he throws.

[Sludge]

Furthermore, if a pitcher dares to give up a hit on an 0-2 count, just about everyone will question him on it. It's not worth the risk.



Sludge

[swoboda]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Are wasted pitches really wasted in that sense though? A few things:

1. A sizeable amount of the time, a guy protecting the plate on an 0-2 count will in fact go after a ball a foot out of the strike zone and either whiff or hit an easily catchable ball. Those instances aren't wasted at all.

2. Often, too, a so-called wasted pitch will actually be setting the batter up for something either on the next pitch or perhaps further in the game. Say a pitcher throws a fastball that misses the corner by half a foot, then on the very next pitch throws a slider which comes out looking like it's just a slower version of that same exact fastball but then nips back into he plate at the last second. Without that first pitch, the second is just a breaking ball.

3. I think you may be overestimating the amount of control most pitchers have. For instance, a lot of breaking pitches aren't really aimed at all except that there's a general desire to get them over the plate. If a pitcher feels that his curve is his out pitch but snaps it off on an 0-2 count, the result could be something way in the dirt, but that doesn't mean that's where it was intended to go.

4. On the flip side, what looks like a wasted pitch to those of us watching from the centerfield camera or the stands looks entirely different from the batter's box. An extreme example I can think of was Randy Johnson facing the last batter of his no-hitter with the Mariners. He "climbed the ladder" on the hitter (kind of a version of point #2; basically, the idea is to throw a rising fastball a little bit higher and higher on each successive pitch - it works deadly well if the hitter in question can't ferret out the rise) and the last pitch, which the guy swung at, I should add, was literally over the batter's head. A wasted pitch? Try Out #27.

As noted, I do think that pitchers not using the classic windup so much anymore is one big thing that affects durability. You're not necessarily able to throw much faster when you wind up, but you do involve your entire body in the torque required to get the velocity you need rather than just your arm, and I have to think that for many pitchers, that's going to expose that wing to more abuse, regardless of the number of pitches he throws.

Syd you make some good pts particularly about setup pitches but the facts are not all on your side....Fact: .the number of pitches per game is up over the years. here is a link to a baseball reference chart demonstrating this

The average number of pitches thrown per game is rising » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive

It's a combo of batters trying to work the count so that teams can get to and exploit the weakest part of the staff, the middle inning relievers, and startting pitchers nibbling too much and of course my original point wasting pitches

When the pitcher is ahead in the count work the corners, don't go way off the plate, these are MLB hitters, the overwhelming majority of whom are more disciplined than Pablo Sandoval and they do not chase the stuff that is clearly out of the zone.

[greenie25]

Originally Posted by swoboda

When the pitcher is ahead in the count work the corners, don't go way off the plate, these are MLB hitters, the overwhelming majority of whom are more disciplined than Pablo Sandoval and they do not chase the stuff that is clearly out of the zone.

Except the stats paint a different picture...

Courtesy of Fangraphs, here is the O-Swing% (which is the percentage of pitches a batter swings at outside the strike zone) in the majors from 2002-2013:

2002: 18.1%
2003: 22.2%
2004: 16.6%
2005: 20.3%
2006: 23.5%
2007: 25.0%
2008: 25.4%
2009: 25.1%
2010: 29.3%
2011: 30.6%
2012: 30.8%
2013: 31.0%

For 2014, O-Swing% is currently 29.0%.

So not only do hitters chase pitches outside of the zone, but they do so more now than they have previously (the data only goes back to 2002).

[Carlton]

Good new points

Is it the pitcher's becoming more dominant or the hitters becoming less disciplined.

Looking at one game (I know small sample size) but that Jose Fernandez masterpiece where the opposing pitcher as did well and they put up 28 combined Strikeouts.

I told my fellow baseball fan friends, it was the worse pitching duel I ever saw, as batters were chasing like they should be in Single A

But I agree with Syd's opinion on it, although with #1 the great pitcher's don't adhere to "wasted pitch" it's not grooved in there or that far out of the zone.
Now, for a majority of P, holy snikeys, why even bother? You throw a fastball so far outside no one will swing, they are overcompensating and getting a 1-2 count so they won't get yelled at for pitching a strike on 1-2, and again...pitch counts are a stupid extreme and wasted pitches are a stupid extreme.
If I was facing Bonds in his prime, I'd try to throw him a strike on 0-2, because he would have swung at my 1st pitch ball, no way would I throw Bonds a K with the first pitch, until he realized I didn't
And the smart pitchers who did throw a K to Bonds at 0-2, were privy to an un Bonds like .600 OPS

Problem is wasted pitch was the norm, and Barry knew it and then the count is 2-2, 3-2 and we all know how that goes

[RchW]

Originally Posted by swoboda

Syd you make some good pts particularly about setup pitches but the facts are not all on your side....Fact: .the number of pitches per game is up over the years. here is a link to a baseball reference chart demonstrating this

The average number of pitches thrown per game is rising » Baseball-Reference Blog » Blog Archive

It's a combo of batters trying to work the count so that teams can get to and exploit the weakest part of the staff, the middle inning relievers, and startting pitchers nibbling too much and of course my original point wasting pitches

When the pitcher is ahead in the count work the corners, don't go way off the plate, these are MLB hitters, the overwhelming majority of whom are more disciplined than Pablo Sandoval and they do not chase the stuff that is clearly out of the zone.

Thanks for this. Pitch data for the dominant starters of the 1960's-1980's is sparse.

What I think people are missing in this discussion is that the older pitchers are not wallowing in the glory of days gone by, they are saying that the pitching approach and pitcher conditioning (ie just throwing) is flawed. The pitching strategy 30-60 years ago was to get ahead of the batter and have them put the ball in play. That led to hits and HR but few walks and generally less strikeouts. If batters worked the count they were 0-2 or 1-2 and the pitcher had the advantage. One fundamental difference I see today is that managers will pitch around power hitters with no one on base. Let's say that takes 6 pitches, after 3 PA you have 18 wasted pitches. If you don't want to get them out, walk them on 4 soft tosses.

See this list from BR play index. It sorts SP from 1950-2014 by CG and WHIP. The results show that modern high end SP are just as effective as the HoF SP of the past but in far fewer innings. Just compare total starts to IP. That suggests to me that in the past 100-120 pitches got 24-27 outs vs 18-22 outs for modern pitchers. This shows a nice mix of modern SP and historical SP with very similar career rates in key stats.




Now see the second chart. We keep the same criteria to qualify but sort on strikeouts per 9 innings. Notice that the historical SP almost disappear from the top of the list. Also note that BB/9 for the top SP in this sort are generally higher. This suggests again that modern pitchers throw more pitches to strike out and walk batters while maintaining similar WHIP to their predecessors.




Last but not least the third list shows pitchers sorted by CG and the low end of SO/9. In this case the modern pitchers almost disappear. To me this clearly shows that historical pitchers didn't need to throw 150 pitches very often because the ball was in play. It's no coincidence that Roy Halladay and Greg Maddux look very much like their historical equivalents.




Now I realize this doesn't address the hitters contribution to the result. We could say that hitters today are better and more powerful but less disciplined, but we could also say that hitters from decades ago were less interested in the big fly and willing to hit the ball the other way. This prompts a question on strategy. The current use of severe defensive shifts seems contradictory. Teams claim that shifts reflect where batters hit the ball yet the modern pitching strategy does not pursue "putting the ball in play". Instead it seems focused on getting the batter to strike out on pitches out of the zone. For example teams play a shift for Jose Bautista yet he has 31 BB (only 1 IBB) in 127 PA. Many of these with no one on base. Why would a team arrange its defense to take advantage of a ball in play but then pitch in a way that virtually guarantees no ball in play?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by greenie25

Except the stats paint a different picture...

Courtesy of Fangraphs, here is the O-Swing% (which is the percentage of pitches a batter swings at outside the strike zone) in the majors from 2002-2013:

2002: 18.1%
2003: 22.2%
2004: 16.6%
2005: 20.3%
2006: 23.5%
2007: 25.0%
2008: 25.4%
2009: 25.1%
2010: 29.3%
2011: 30.6%
2012: 30.8%
2013: 31.0%

For 2014, O-Swing% is currently 29.0%.

So not only do hitters chase pitches outside of the zone, but they do so more now than they have previously (the data only goes back to 2002).

Right but who is doing the swinging? The K rate is way up but other key stats are relatively stable. Poor hitters strikeout today where in the past they may have hit the ball. I wonder what the difference in O-Swing% is for the top 25% vs the bottom 25% of hitters.

That just adds to my contention that the pitching strategy is flawed. Pitchers throw outside the zone to good hitters then get burned when they have to throw a strike with men on base from walks. If they got ahead by throwing strikes a la Maddux et al they would have success based on the data we have available.

[Shadow Faar]

I think we have lost sight of what the comment says. We need to not rely on pitch count only. We need to watch the pitcher and his mechanics to know if he needs to be pulled. Whether it is 50 pitches, 100 pitches or 150 pitches.

If his mechanics aren't correct then he will get injured easier no matter the pitch count.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Shadow Faar

I think we have lost sight of what the comment says. We need to not rely on pitch count only. We need to watch the pitcher and his mechanics to know if he needs to be pulled. Whether it is 50 pitches, 100 pitches or 150 pitches.

If his mechanics aren't correct then he will get injured easier no matter the pitch count.

So if a pitcher's mechanics look good and he's given up 7 runs you would leave him in?

That's not what happens. Pitchers are pulled based on a predetermined count in the majority of instances. I've never heard a manager say he replaced a pitcher because of mechanics. Unless you equate pitching badly with mechanics. OTOH pitchers have been pulled from no hitters and shutouts based on pitch count.

A former MLB catcher tells a story of a mound visit where the manager asked the SP how he felt. The pitcher said "I don't know but what's my pitch count"?

If there was evidence that strict pitch counts reduced catastrophic arm injuries I'd be 100% in support. There is no evidence because no team currently uses a different strategy.

[greenie25]

Originally Posted by RchW

I wonder what the difference in O-Swing% is for the top 25% vs the bottom 25% of hitters.

Well, I'm not going to post that data for the past 12 seasons (which is why I used the MLB total instead of individual batter data), but looking at last season...

There were 140 batters in MLB that qualified for the batting title last year.

Sorting by wOBA, the Top 25% (37 hitters with wOBA ranging from 0.357 to 0.455) had an O-Swing % that was roughly 29% (rough calculation on my part). The O-Swing % range from quite high (Marlon Byrd tops at 40.7; 16 hitters at 30% or greater, including Carlos Gomez, Yadier Molina, Chris Davis, Michael Cuddyer, Robinson Cano, Miguel Cabrera, Matt Holliday and Giancarlo Stanton) to fairly low (Joey Votto lowest at 20; 9 hitters at 25% or lower, including Buster Posey, Mike Trout, Tulo, Joe Mauer, Joey Bats and Shin-Soo Choo).

The bottom 25% (36 hitters with wOBA ranging from 0.247 to 0.318) had an O-Swing % that was roughly 32.5% (again, rough calculation). A.J. Pierzynski had the highest (49.6), there were 21 batters at 30% or higher (a lot of guys I would classify as swings-at-anything hitters like Alexei Ramirez, Erick Aybar, Alcides Escobar, Jose Altuve, Ichiro Suzuki, Leonys Martin, Starlin Castro, Brandon Crawford and Darwin Barney) and 5 at 25% or lower (led by Russell Martin at 22.8% - surprised to see Dan Uggla and Elvis Andrus in this group).

[RchW]

Originally Posted by greenie25

Well, I'm not going to post that data for the past 12 seasons (which is why I used the MLB total instead of individual batter data), but looking at last season...

There were 140 batters in MLB that qualified for the batting title last year.

Sorting by wOBA, the Top 25% (37 hitters with wOBA ranging from 0.357 to 0.455) had an O-Swing % that was roughly 29% (rough calculation on my part). The O-Swing % range from quite high (Marlon Byrd tops at 40.7; 16 hitters at 30% or greater, including Carlos Gomez, Yadier Molina, Chris Davis, Michael Cuddyer, Robinson Cano, Miguel Cabrera, Matt Holliday and Giancarlo Stanton) to fairly low (Joey Votto lowest at 20; 9 hitters at 25% or lower, including Buster Posey, Mike Trout, Tulo, Joe Mauer, Joey Bats and Shin-Soo Choo).

The bottom 25% (36 hitters with wOBA ranging from 0.247 to 0.318) had an O-Swing % that was roughly 32.5% (again, rough calculation). A.J. Pierzynski had the highest (49.6), there were 21 batters at 30% or higher (a lot of guys I would classify as swings-at-anything hitters like Alexei Ramirez, Erick Aybar, Alcides Escobar, Jose Altuve, Ichiro Suzuki, Leonys Martin, Starlin Castro, Brandon Crawford and Darwin Barney) and 5 at 25% or lower (led by Russell Martin at 22.8% - surprised to see Dan Uggla and Elvis Andrus in this group).

This shocks me only because I think the Blue Jays swing at anything. This tells me that plate discipline is a dying art. Is it possible that the strike zone in-game is different than the Fangraphs data? It just seems like a big number.

[greenie25]

Originally Posted by RchW

This shocks me only because I think the Blue Jays swing at anything. This tells me that plate discipline is a dying art. Is it possible that the strike zone in-game is different than the Fangraphs data? It just seems like a big number.

Well, it looks like Fangraphs has two separate sets of data that they use for their plate discipline stats:

FanGraphs carries plate discipline statistics based on both Baseball Info. Solutions (BIS) data as well as Pitch f/x data. There are some minor differences between the two systems. The Pitch f/x section presents raw Pitch f/x data broken down according to defined baselines, while the BIS section takes the Pitch F/x data and uses human scorers to modify classifications.

I posted the BIS data, and there are some slight differences when compared to the Pitch f/x data.

For example, the Jays, using BIS data, had a team O-Swing % of 30.5% last season (which was slightly under average). Using the raw Pitch f/x data, the O-Swing was 29.1%, which was still slightly below average (MLB average according to Pitch f/x last season was 29.7%).

As far as ranks go, Jays were 20th using BIS (Colorado, Milwaukee and Florida chased the most; Boston, Cleveland and Tampa the least). They were tied for 21st using PF/x (Colorado, Milwaukee and Houston worst; Oakland, Cleveland and Tampa best).

So, while it may seem that the Jays swing at everything, they were actually average last year as far as chasing and are right around that level so far this year. That number may be influenced by Bautista and Encarnacion, neither of whom chase very often. To put it another way, the guys you think chase a lot probably do (Melky, Bonifacio, Rajai Davis and Arencibia were all over 35% last year; J.P. was close to 40).

[Tram2Whitaker]

I may have missed this, but has anyone mentioned what role the radar gun has played in ruining pitchers?

Point:
Not too long ago, as recently as the 1980s, there were less than a handful of pitchers that could lay claim to the 100 mph fastball. Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Frank Viola. Today, if your team doesn't have at least one guy hitting triple digits, you're in the minor leagues. Guys like Joel Zumaya and Mark Prior come into the league with all this hype only to hurt themselves once they've made it.

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

I may have missed this, but has anyone mentioned what role the radar gun has played in ruining pitchers?

Point:
Not too long ago, as recently as the 1980s, there were less than a handful of pitchers that could lay claim to the 100 mph fastball. Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Frank Viola. Today, if your team doesn't have at least one guy hitting triple digits, you're in the minor leagues. Guys like Joel Zumaya and Mark Prior come into the league with all this hype only to hurt themselves once they've made it.

I agree with your general statement. But I'd be shocked if any starting pitcher outside of possibly Nolan Ryan was ever clocked at 100 mph in the '80's. The only way Frank Viola's fastball would've seen anything higher than 92 would've been if he dropped it in the back seat of a fast car.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

I may have missed this, but has anyone mentioned what role the radar gun has played in ruining pitchers?

Point:
Not too long ago, as recently as the 1980s, there were less than a handful of pitchers that could lay claim to the 100 mph fastball. Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Frank Viola. Today, if your team doesn't have at least one guy hitting triple digits, you're in the minor leagues. Guys like Joel Zumaya and Mark Prior come into the league with all this hype only to hurt themselves once they've made it.

Well, Viola with a 100mph I don't think so...but guys like Goose Gossage and J.R. Richard did

I think $$$ trumps the radar gun when it comes to the pro ball as P are now investments rather than unique, which is why we will have th DH in both leagues, and pitch counts.

Originally Posted by Splitter24

I agree with your general statement. But I'd be shocked if any starting pitcher outside of possibly Nolan Ryan was ever clocked at 100 mph in the '80's.

There were, they just blew their arms out in the minors, had a couple of surgeries and bounced around for 10 years in Independent leagues, because they could throw, but couldn't pitch to save their life.

For amateur and draft levels, I think you are correct...if you throw 95+ you are a pitching prospect, no matter your bad mechanics (Jim Parque, Kyle Peterson) or mental makeup (Van Poppel,Carlos Zambrano) when guys who throw in the high 80's,low 90's with very good control have shown to have less injury and better success

Same goes for hitters, if you have power but a hole in your swing, you are a great prospect, because you will still hit .250 with 30+ HRs...but when you get to the majors...sorry to all Sabermetric fans out there but 3 or 4 hitters like that does NOT make a well rounded baseball team. You need that defensive guy and the guy who will hit .300 with 35 doubles 10 triples and 5 Hrs with less than 70 Ks a year

[Splitter24]

Originally Posted by Carlton

Well, Viola with a 100mph I don't think so...but guys like Goose Gossage and J.R. Richard did

Goose, sure. But he wasn't a starter in the 80's. You could probably throw in a young Lee Smith in there if you're going with relievers. J.R., also yes. But I wasn't thinking of him as an 80's starter given he had the career-ending stroke mid-way through 1980.

Originally Posted by Carlton

There were, they just blew their arms out in the minors, had a couple of surgeries and bounced around for 10 years in Independent leagues, because they could throw, but couldn't pitch to save their life.

I was implying major league players.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Carlton

.sorry to all Sabermetric fans out there but 3 or 4 hitters like that does NOT make a well rounded baseball team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Leo_The_Lip]

This article helps explain the increase in swinging strikes, I think.

Expanding the Edges of the Strike Zone ? The Hardball Times

Basically because umps are expanding the strike zone, hitters are swinging more because they aren't as sure how pitches will be called.