Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

More ks = less BiP (not controlled by the pitcher) = more chance of a no hitter.

And this, as well, is very true....but it certainly doesn't mean a guy who strikes out 18 guys in a game is gonna throw a no hitter. There's still 9 more outs, not to mention that the more guys you strike out in a game, the more pitches you throw and the more tired and errant you become. So I would actually argue that the more guys per game you strikeout, the HARDER it is to throw a no hitter. At least, I'd argue that before I'd argue the other side of the argument.

[CubsLose]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

And this, as well, is very true....but it certainly doesn't mean a guy who strikes out 18 guys in a game is gonna throw a no hitter. There's still 9 more outs, not to mention that the more guys you strike out in a game, the more pitches you throw and the more tired and errant you become. So I would actually argue that the more guys per game you strikeout, the HARDER it is to throw a no hitter. At least, I'd argue that before I'd argue the other side of the argument.

This is patently the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. If a pitcher takes the mound and strikes out 27 guys in a row, do you think he's got a chance for a no-no? As a pitcher you'd expect about 30% of the balls hit in play to fall for a hit, so the less chance you give them to hit the ball the less chance you'll give up a hit.

It isn't a coincidence that Nolan Ryan leads all pitchers in no-hitters. Because he struck out a lot more batters and, yes, walked more batters, than the average pitcher, he was giving opponents less of a chance to put bat on ball and make a hit. I would have thought this is obvious.

[dougaiton]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

and you WOULD lose, at least 8 out of 10 times. Just using your numbers, Nolan was better in HR, a lot better in K's, and similar in DERA. The only noticeable difference is in BB, and I'll take the significant difference in Ks as opposed to BBs. What difference does it make if he walks the bases full if he follows it by striking out the side? Finley was a damn fine pitcher as well, but he belongs in the same breath as Glavine and Schilling (at best), not Ryan.

But DERA is basically them all added together and translated into runs. What that means is that put in front of the same defense in the same era, Ryan would have an ERA 0.2 higher than Finley. That surely means I'd win around 6 out of 10?

I don't see any evidence in the numbers that suggests on any given day, Nolan Ryan would have a better start than Chuck Finley. Over his career, Ryan was undoubtedly more valuable. But we were talking dominance, and over a given game, Chuck Finley was more likely to produce good results.

Sorry if I am sounding snippy today - it's pouring rain and I just got caught in it for the 2nd time.

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by CubsLose

This is patently the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. If a pitcher takes the mound and strikes out 27 guys in a row, do you think he's got a chance for a no-no? As a pitcher you'd expect about 30% of the balls hit in play to fall for a hit, so the less chance you give them to hit the ball the less chance you'll give up a hit.

It isn't a coincidence that Nolan Ryan leads all pitchers in no-hitters. Because he struck out a lot more batters and, yes, walked more batters, than the average pitcher, he was giving opponents less of a chance to put bat on ball and make a hit. I would have thought this is obvious.

I appreciate your....zeal...as misguided and misunderstanding as it is. But what I'm saying is a guy who strikes out 18 guys has to throw at least 54 pitches, whereas a guy who gets all of them to ground or fly out on the first pitch has to throw 18 pitches...it's a lot harder to throw 54 pitches than it is to throw 18 pitches. Now obviously, no one induces everyone they face to ground or fly out on the first pitch anymore than anyone throws no more than three pitches for every K...fact is, a guy who's gonna strike out 18 has to throw as many as twice as many pitches (that's just a general, ballpark number...obviously not applicable as a blanket, general rule) as a guy who's going to induce ground or fly ball outs from the same 18 guys...and THEN there's the other 9 outs to worry about. And *I* would think it's obvious that the more pitches a pitcher throws, the more fatigue sets in, pitches start losing life and velocity and location, and maitaining that no hitter gets harder. So my POINT is that the more guys you strike out, the more pitches you have to throw, and the harder it gets to maintain the no hitter. So, thus, I contend that, while I think it all evens out in a no hitter and neither side (k's vs ground or fly ball inducing) is easier than the other (as more balls in play through the inducing technique DOES mean more chances for an infield hit, a dying quail, a texas leaguer, etc, but more K's means more fatigue and less quality late in the game). I say they're exactly the same, as far as affecting a no-hitter. BUT, if it WERE easier to pitch a no-hitter one way than it is the other, it'd be easier to induce the groundballs and throw LESS pitches, therefore being able to throw more QUALITY pitches LATE in the ballgame. Does that make sense, or do you want me to say it again?

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

I don't see any evidence in the numbers that suggests on any given day, Nolan Ryan would have a better start than Chuck Finley. Over his career, Ryan was undoubtedly more valuable. But we were talking dominance, and over a given game, Chuck Finley was more likely to produce good results.

I'm sorry if I'm an *******, too, but that's just not statistically accurate. And certainly not because of the defense, era played in, or league played in. I'm currently looking for a stat rating both Ryan and Finley's quality start ratios. If you find one first, please share.

[dougaiton]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

I'm sorry if I'm an *******, too, but that's just not statistically accurate. And certainly not because of the defense, era played in, or league played in. I'm currently looking for a stat rating both Ryan and Finley's quality start ratios. If you find one first, please share.

But it is! Finley, if he was playing in the same time, same defense, same stadium, would be 0.2 runs better than Ryan in an 'average' game, as per almost any metric you can find!

www.baseballprospectus.com

What might be easier is to ask in what combined metrics does Ryan look better in?

Anyway, I can't find QS% anywhere, but I'm not sure what it would prove. If two pitchers have similar results, but different QS%s, then what your left with is a pitcher who has more good starts and more bad ones, and a pitcher who has more average starts. Which is better? The guy who gives a team a chance to win each day, but equally a chance to lose, or the guy who puts up numbers that will always win half hs games but always lose the other half? They both sound about the same to me.

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

But it is! Finley, if he was playing in the same time, same defense, same stadium, would be 0.2 runs better than Ryan in an 'average' game, as per almost any metric you can find!

www.baseballprospectus.com

What might be easier is to ask in what combined metrics does Ryan look better in?

Anyway, I can't find QS% anywhere, but I'm not sure what it would prove. If two pitchers have similar results, but different QS%s, then what your left with is a pitcher who has more good starts and more bad ones, and a pitcher who has more average starts. Which is better? The guy who gives a team a chance to win each day, but equally a chance to lose, or the guy who puts up numbers that will always win half hs games but always lose the other half? They both sound about the same to me.

It's frustrating to me that I can't find statistical evidence as to why Nolan Ryan is a better pitcher to have on the hill both on a game to game basis and on a career long scale. I'm gonna refrain from continuing that angle of the debate for a few minutes while I look around for hard, numbers facts one way or the other. I don't wanna speak without having proof, ya know?

[cooper_gd]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

And this, as well, is very true....but it certainly doesn't mean a guy who strikes out 18 guys in a game is gonna throw a no hitter. There's still 9 more outs, not to mention that the more guys you strike out in a game, the more pitches you throw and the more tired and errant you become. So I would actually argue that the more guys per game you strikeout, the HARDER it is to throw a no hitter. At least, I'd argue that before I'd argue the other side of the argument.

A possible 9 balls in play as compared to 10? 11? 12? 13? It would seem that the more at bats where there is a ball put in play, the more chance there is of a hit being the result.

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

What might be easier is to ask in what combined metrics does Ryan look better in?

How about in STF, which, according to your site, baseballprospectus.com, is "A rough indicator of the pitcher's overall dominance"? Ryan is a 34, whereas Finley is a 20. Also, Ryan's ERA (which is, in essence, a relative guage of an average game for a pitcher, right?) is almost a run better. Finley also allowed more pitching runs above average by a fair margin (200 to 186). But I think the biggest difference is their Delta-H, if I understand this stat correctly (it's a new one to me)...it appears, in essence, that the higher a Delta-H you get above zero, the worse, more or less. That said, Ryan's Delta-H was a -95, whereas Finley's was a +51.

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by cooper_gd

A possible 9 balls in play as compared to 10? 11? 12? 13? It would seem that the more at bats where there is a ball put in play, the more chance there is of a hit being the result.

Like I said, THAT IS TRUE, but what I'm arguing is that the more pitches you throw (as in, to strike these guys out), the more fatigued you get and the harder it is to make quality pitches later in the game...thus making it harder to maintain and complete a no-hitter. A sh*tload of no-nos get broken up in the 8th inning or later, right? The pitchers are tired, it's fatigue. So, ONCE AGAIN, I'm saying that fatigue becomes a bigger factor the more guys you strike out, thus canceling out the plus you get from having a fewer number of BIPs.

[cooper_gd]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

Like I said, THAT IS TRUE, but what I'm arguing is that the more pitches you throw (as in, to strike these guys out), the more fatigued you get and the harder it is to make quality pitches later in the game...thus making it harder to maintain and complete a no-hitter. A sh*tload of no-nos get broken up in the 8th inning or later, right? The pitchers are tired, it's fatigue. So, ONCE AGAIN, I'm saying that fatigue becomes a bigger factor the more guys you strike out, thus canceling out the plus you get from having a fewer number of BIPs.

The no no would not be broken up if the offensive player would not have put the ball in play.

Originally Posted by dog ation

But it is! Finley, if he was playing in the same time, same defense, same stadium, would be 0.2 runs better than Ryan in an 'average' game, as per almost any metric you can find!

I think dog is making a different argument than you are.

[dougaiton]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

How about in STF, which, according to your site, baseballprospectus.com, is "A rough indicator of the pitcher's overall dominance"? Ryan is a 34, whereas Finley is a 20. Also, Ryan's ERA (which is, in essence, a relative guage of an average game for a pitcher, right?) is almost a run better. Finley also allowed more pitching runs above average by a fair margin (200 to 186). But I think the biggest difference is their Delta-H, if I understand this stat correctly (it's a new one to me)...it appears, in essence, that the higher a Delta-H you get above zero, the worse, more or less. That said, Ryan's Delta-H was a -95, whereas Finley's was a +51.

These are all not translated apart, from stuff, which I'll get to in a minute.

If we translate them, than Finley has an ERA+ of 115 to Ryan's 112. Advantage Finley.

PRAA is better if it is higher (I know, it's back to front!). Advantage Finley.

Delta-H is a measure of luck (if that's what you believe BABIP to be). Finley had +51 bad luck (i.e., he allowed 51 hits in his career more than he should have), whereas Ryan was -93 (he allowed 93 hits less than he should have. Advantage Finley (although this isn't a measure of effectiveness, just a measure of how lucky the could/should have been).

STF is interesting. You'll need to talk to Josh, but there's a thread on Miguel Batista where we discuss it. I like it, but others don't. Advantage Ryan!

EDIT: More on STF:

STF is not really a measure of effectiveness, but rather pitching 'talent'.

I've defended it, so it's a bit hypocritical of me to disagree with using it. It isn't about results though, although maybe that's not what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Joshv02

That is true. I guess it depends on what we are using the metric to do. It seems a better approach is just to take HR/9 and regress towards league average at some higher rate than BB/HBP/SO. That would seem to be more intuitive to me. But, BPro doesn't seem to like regressing stats. I don't know why. (They also don't like PBP data. That I do know why, but it seems like an odd reason.)

So, if we think that pitchers have some control over h$, we would just regress that big time towards lg/tm avg. If we thought that pitchers have control over HRr we do the same thing, but less bigtime.

When they use PERA and EqERA, which is a pseudo ERC (iirc), that throws me, too: do they have any reason to think that PERA or EqERA is any more predictable than FIPS with translated stats? Why not just use a normalize H$, normalized R/G, or some other things. Anyway, sorry for the digression.

[dougaiton]

Added to the post above.

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by cooper_gd

The no no would not be broken up if the offensive player would not have put the ball in play.

I'm not properly illustrating my point.

When the pitcher throws a lot of pitches (to strike a lot of guys out), he gets more tired. Now, those 14, 18 guys he strikes out, whatever, YES, they don't put the ball in play and thus do not pose a threat to the no hitter. Where I'm talking about is the OTHER guys, the ones that DON'T strike out. By the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings in a no hitter where the pitcher is striking out a lot of guys, he's starting to get tired. And *WHEN* the pitcher gets tired, his pitches drift over the plate, lose velocity, lose life, and become easier to hit and harder to swing and miss on. So, for the final time, if ANYTHING, it's easier to break up a no hitter in the 9th inning, for a hitter, when the pitcher has thrown 129 pitches and struck out 19 guys than it is when the pitcher has thrown 87 pitches and struck out 5, because the pitcher who's thrown 129 pitches is far more fatigued than the guy who's thrown 87, and the guy who's thrown 87 can still throw within his game plan, make quality pitches, and is ultimately going to be a helluva lot more effective. And also for the last time, I think both sides cancel each other out, on the "difficulty meter" if there is such a thing, for that simple fact...the more strikeouts there are, the less number of balls in play BUT CONVERSELY the less a pitcher has left in the tank at the end of the game to lock it down. As a general rule. Of course, there are exceptions. It's also worth noting that only one pitcher besides Nolan Ryan, in the recorded history of baseball, has ever struck out 15 or more hitters en route to a no-hitter, and that was Warren Spahn, who struck out 15 and walked two on September 16, 1960. All in all, there have been 208 recorded no hitters in MLB history, and of the ones recorded by a solo pitcher, where one pitcher started and finished the game and had a no hitter, only 29 have been with more than 9 strikeouts. 6 of them belong to Nolan Ryan. That leaves exactly 20 out of 201 no hitters NOT pitched by Nolan Ryan* to have 10 or more strikeouts in the game, which is a paltry 10.05%. So what I'm saying is, as a general rule, there's a proportion somewhere that will show that the more strikeouts you have in the course of a game, the harder it is to finish out that game with a no-hitter.

*one of Ryan's no hitters only had 9 Ks, but for the sake of argument, I took it out as well

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

These are all not translated apart, from stuff, which I'll get to in a minute.

If we translate them, than Finley has an ERA+ of 115 to Ryan's 112. Advantage Finley.

PRAA is better if it is higher (I know, it's back to front!). Advantage Finley.

Delta-H is a measure of luck (if that's what you believe BABIP to be). Finley had +51 bad luck (i.e., he allowed 51 hits in his career more than he should have), whereas Ryan was -93 (he allowed 93 hits less than he should have. Advantage Finley (although this isn't a measure of effectiveness, just a measure of how lucky the could/should have been).

STF is interesting. You'll need to talk to Josh, but there's a thread on Miguel Batista where we discuss it. I like it, but others don't. Advantage Ryan!

EDIT: More on STF:

STF is not really a measure of effectiveness, but rather pitching 'talent'.

I've defended it, so it's a bit hypocritical of me to disagree with using it. It isn't about results though, although maybe that's not what we're talking about.

This is valid and with merit, I recognize it now. It still doesn't change the fact that Nolan Ryan was more overpowering than Chuck Finley, but I agree now, looking at it, that Finley has a stronger case on an individual game basis against Ryan than he does on a career basis against Ryan. I'd still take Ryan 100% of the time, and that has nothing to do with my personal bias.

I have issues about the math of some of the all time statistics on baseballprospectus, too. I'm not the math head to challenge these guys, but by their math, Finley was as good on a game to game basis as Ryan, which just, logically, isn't true, or FINLEY would be the one with 5,714 K's (or a proportion of such based on his career IPs), not Ryan. I think it's supposed to be in reference to consistency overall, but it seems like semantics when Ryan's ERA is almost a run better. Perhaps there's something I don't understand about it, but it seems suspect, to me.

[dougaiton]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

I have issues about the math of some of the all time statistics on baseballprospectus, too. I'm not the math head to challenge these guys, but by their math, Finley was as good on a game to game basis as Ryan, which just, logically, isn't true, or FINLEY would be the one with 5,714 K's (or a proportion of such based on his career IPs), not Ryan. I think it's supposed to be in reference to consistency overall, but it seems like semantics when Ryan's ERA is almost a run better. Perhaps there's something I don't understand about it, but it seems suspect, to me.

I think we were both coming at the same q from different angles, so it seems sensible we came up with different results!

The reason that Ryan's ERA is better, but his translated ERA is worse, is that Finley pitched exclusively in the AL in a hitter's ballpark with a DH, while Ryan spent his career flitting around different stadiums, most of which were better for pitchers than Ryan. Moreover, Ryan played in an era where the offense wasn't as prevalent - Ryan retired after 93, which was the start of the massive offensive explosion, so Finley gets credit there.

Over his career, Ryan was considerably more valuable, because he pitched for so long and so many innings. If you were to take one pitcher and keep him for his whole career, you'd take Ryan in an instant!

[CubsLose]

Originally Posted by Smoothie7745

I'm not properly illustrating my point.

When the pitcher throws a lot of pitches (to strike a lot of guys out), he gets more tired. Now, those 14, 18 guys he strikes out, whatever, YES, they don't put the ball in play and thus do not pose a threat to the no hitter. Where I'm talking about is the OTHER guys, the ones that DON'T strike out.

But it's LUCK! To paraphrase NekcarCcM SoroV, watch the Home Run Derby during the All Star Break. The pitcher is LOBBING pitches over the heart of the plate, much slower and with worse location than a fatigued game pitcher, and the batters STILL make 'outs'. It doesn't matter how fatigued the pitcher is late in the game, it isn't gonna guarantee that when contact is made the ball will fall for a hit. By striking out players, be it in the first inning or the ninth, he's increasing the probability that no-one will get a hit.

And do you really think that fatigue will play a role anyway when the adrenaline's pumping during those last six outs?

An interesting article (not entirely unrelated), which I'm sure you have read but may want to look at again, is Bill James' study into the pitchers most likely to throw a no-hitter. Those most likely to pitch that rarest of games are undoubtedly strikeout pitchers.

http://www.robneyer.com/book_04_ExpectNoNo.html

I have been trying to find stats for near no-hitters but, like those ill-fated moundsmen, have come up short. It would be interesting to see if those who have come close but failed have struck out more batters (and thrown more pitches) compared to those who have thrown a no hitter because I'm always happy to be proved wrong.

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by CubsLose

But it's LUCK! To paraphrase NekcarCcM SoroV, watch the Home Run Derby during the All Star Break. The pitcher is LOBBING pitches over the heart of the plate, much slower and with worse location than a fatigued game pitcher, and the batters STILL make 'outs'. It doesn't matter how fatigued the pitcher is late in the game, it isn't gonna guarantee that when contact is made the ball will fall for a hit. By striking out players, be it in the first inning or the ninth, he's increasing the probability that no-one will get a hit.

And do you really think that fatigue will play a role anyway when the adrenaline's pumping during those last six outs?

An interesting article (not entirely unrelated), which I'm sure you have read but may want to look at again, is Bill James' study into the pitchers most likely to throw a no-hitter. Those most likely to pitch that rarest of games are undoubtedly strikeout pitchers.

http://www.robneyer.com/book_04_ExpectNoNo.html

I have been trying to find stats for near no-hitters but, like those ill-fated moundsmen, have come up short. It would be interesting to see if those who have come close but failed have struck out more batters (and thrown more pitches) compared to those who have thrown a no hitter because I'm always happy to be proved wrong.

Good link there, that was a fascinating read that I'm gonna bookmark and study a little more closely. Bill James usually has some pretty intelligent sh*t to say (although I don't consider him the end all, be all of baseball that most other folks do).

As far as comparing it to the homerun derby, it's completely impossible. First of all, "outs" in the derby are anything that is not a HR, which includes anything that would result in a basehit in a real game. Also, like you said, the pitchers are lobbing batting practice, not pitching. I could go on there, but there's no real point; there's no comparison between the end of a no hitter and the homerun derby, other than that when a pitcher is striking out a lot of guys throughout the game and racks up a pitch count, his pitches look *more like* those in a homerun derby as the game wears on, rendering the pitcher hittable and usually resulting in the death of a no-hitter.

There's very little in baseball that actually happens as a result of luck. Almost anything can be broken down into a number. No-hitters are no different. The only real, consistent aspect of luck present in a no hitter is a pitcher being able to follow his (or his catcher's) game plan and get guys out.

[Smoothie7745]

Originally Posted by dougaiton

I think we were both coming at the same q from different angles, so it seems sensible we came up with different results!

The reason that Ryan's ERA is better, but his translated ERA is worse, is that Finley pitched exclusively in the AL in a hitter's ballpark with a DH, while Ryan spent his career flitting around different stadiums, most of which were better for pitchers than Ryan. Moreover, Ryan played in an era where the offense wasn't as prevalent - Ryan retired after 93, which was the start of the massive offensive explosion, so Finley gets credit there.

Over his career, Ryan was considerably more valuable, because he pitched for so long and so many innings. If you were to take one pitcher and keep him for his whole career, you'd take Ryan in an instant!

Fair enough.

[CubsLose]

I just HAD to go and find out for myself - to prove that pitchers who get more strikeouts have a better chance of a no-hitter.

I went to this site: http://stewthornley.net/lostninth.html and then found the listed no-no's on Retrosheet. I noted the number of ip and strikeouts in the near misses that had box scores between 1963 and 1975 (I didn't count no-hitters with more than one pitcher). On www.baseball-almanac.com I found a list of no-hitters in the same period. There were 31 near misses and 30 no-hitters that I found data for.

Pitchers who threw no-hitters going into the ninth but then lost them threw 273 2/3 innings and struck out 190 batters. Pitchers who went all the way pitched 270 innings and struck out 251 pitchers.

Near misses: 6.2 k/9
No-hitters: 8.4 k/9

ONe of the no-hitters was Ken Holtzman's of 1969 where he struck out a grand total of zero batters.

I believe this is a large enough discrepancy to claim that the more strikeouts the greater the chance of a no-no in this era, but I would like to see the results from ALL near misses and no-hitters to make a more credible claim.