Steve McCatty On Strikeouts

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

It happens in Majors too. Good pitchers keep hitters off balance so they don't make solid contact. The less solid contact hitters make, the fewer hits they are likely to get. However, there is no metric for "solid contact". BABIP does not differentiate betweeen hard hit balls and tappers. For that matter, it won't tell you if the hits were scattered over six innings or all in a row. In many ways it's a meaningless stat.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Goody

Since I'm a Mariners fan and watch most of their games, I'll give my limited take on it.

Jason Vargas is a prototypical "contact" pitcher. He's good, and can go deep in games, but he doesn't get the same dominant stats as Felix Hernandez. He gives up a lot of home runs because...well...if you're not striking people out or trying to strike them out there's always the chance of them getting ahold of one of your "safety/economy" pitches.

Hernandez is an elite pitcher. He racks up the strike outs but sometimes he doesn't. If he is not "feeling it" he knows to switch modes. But when he is feeling it...the strike out is how he racks up his 3 or 4 dominant starts in a row 90% of the time.

It basically all works out to the style of the pitcher and his talent. Keep the ball where the guy can't hit it well. If you have to talent to do that...it'll result in more strike outs naturally. If you don't have the talent to do that...use Steve McCatty's philosophy and hope for the best.

Vargas lives off of Safeco field. If he didnt play in that huge park he would be a below average pitcher. His road splits and career history prior to Seattle support this. Technically he is a below average pitcher and that is what these advanced metrics can tell us. It doesnt keep people from thinking he is decent however.

If he pitched at Yankee Stadium his ERA would be above 5 every single year.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Right now no one knows why one guy breaks down and another can pitch forever. Researchers have been studying it for decades. Micky Lolich, who never would have appeared on the cover of a fitness magazine, pitched 300 innings a year on a regular basis while guys who would be magazine covers are lucky to throw 180.

And if we have no clue, we can't really teach pitchers how they should change their approaches on strikeouts. The argument about not trying harder for strikeouts in some occasions but not others was a lot about resting arms.

We do have some clue, and thanks to new technology, we can observe pitchers closer than ever. There are more and more money spent on this also.

I wouldn't put too much weight " studying for decades" actually. The kind of studies we can do today is quite different than just a decade ago.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Right now no one knows why one guy breaks down and another can pitch forever. Researchers have been studying it for decades. Micky Lolich, who never would have appeared on the cover of a fitness magazine, pitched 300 innings a year on a regular basis while guys who would be magazine covers are lucky to throw 180.

Fergie Jenkins said a few weeks ago that he never lifted weights in his career. He also said that they ran a lot more for stamina and threw every day. Interesting to note that Roy Halladay the closest modern analogue to big time CG pitchers of the past is known for his running program.

I think its pretty clear that old time pitchers did not go 100%. They didn't have the loaded lineups we see today. This is anecdotal but I've watched some vintage games recently and the strike zone is huge. That tells me that pitchers today must go 100% from pitch 1 and they have very little room for error. All that translates into physical stress.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by RchW

I think its pretty clear that old time pitchers did not go 100%. They didn't have the loaded lineups we see today. This is anecdotal but I've watched some vintage games recently and the strike zone is huge. That tells me that pitchers today must go 100% from pitch 1 and they have very little room for error. All that translates into physical stress.

Pitchers a generation ago and earlier had a larger strike zone, particularly in the AL when the umps wore the hanging chest protectors. They were also able to pitch inside without fear of being ejected from the game.

[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.

[Goody]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Vargas lives off of Safeco field. If he didnt play in that huge park he would be a below average pitcher. His road splits and career history prior to Seattle support this. Technically he is a below average pitcher and that is what these advanced metrics can tell us. It doesnt keep people from thinking he is decent however.

If he pitched at Yankee Stadium his ERA would be above 5 every single year.

His career numbers are also before he met and mentored from Jamie Moyer/Cliff Lee.

He still gives up moonshots, Safeco doesn't hold them when people get him "well hit".

[Big Oil]

I am surprised that this has not yet been cited, but it may help you all.

The Many Flavors of DIPS: A History and an Overview | SABR

Summary:

McCracken’s work got people thinking about pitching performance with fielding factored out. The thinking manifested itself in forms ranging from insults directed at McCracken’s work and sanity to thoughtful and thorough research by those looking to prove or disprove his idea. The two leading responses to McCracken’s work came in July 2003 from Tom Tippett at Diamond Mind Baseball and in February 2004 from Mitchel Lichtman at Baseball Think Factory. Part of what most made Tom Tippett’s work compelling was that he drew his data from a much longer period, 1913 through 2002, than did McCracken, who initially looked at only two seasons, 1998 and 1999.
Tippett drew three main conclusions:
Pitchers do influence BABIP.
A pitcher shows statistically significant BABIP consistency across the length of his career.
Small influence over BABIP (much smaller than influence over strikeouts and walks) is still significant because such a large percentage of balls are put into play.
Tippett observed that McCracken may have been misled by the bad BABIP numbers that Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, and Pedro Martinez had in the 1999 season. Most seasons they posted BABIP numbers lower (better) than the league average. Also of note: Six of the top 35 pitchers in career BABIP were knuckleballers (Charlie Hough was the best overall), and soft-tossing lefties like Jamie Moyer had low BABIPs despite low strikeout rates. (In Moyer’s case, he made up for the low strikeout rate with an exceptionally low walk rate.) Successful pitchers with low strikeout rates and high BABIPs—Tommy John is an example—led Tippett to suggest further research on the ability of pitchers to induce double-play groundballs.23

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Big Oil

I am surprised that this has not yet been cited, but it may help you all.

The Many Flavors of DIPS: A History and an Overview | SABR

Summary:

Thank you for posting this.

[Goody]

I think if BABIP was broken down into well hit and not well hit it would make much more sense.

High BABIP on well hit balls is mostly luck and defense involved. But the pitcher's and batter's talent is first on this stat.

High BABIP on not well hit balls is batter's running speed first and luck and defense and talent second. This would be the argument of Ichiro detractors as well, as far as his batting goes.

Pitcher has more control over whether a pitch will be well hit or not well hit than the batter does. His influence increases with the amount of pitches he has and his stuff.

If a pitcher has less pitches, the ones he does has better be mean enough to keep the % of well hit balls down. If he has a lot of pitches he can throw for strikes and they're good enough, the % of well hit balls will be down due to batters being off balance.

Every match up is so deep. Is the batter looking to guess the pitch or is he looking for a mistake pitch? Either way, the pitcher is the one dictating what the the batter has to react to.

BABIP comes into effect after the ball has been put in play. And different things factor in depending on whether the ball was well hit or not. I think as long as the stat is looked at without broken it down further, its misleading.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Goody

I think if BABIP was broken down into well hit and not well hit it would make much more sense.

High BABIP on well hit balls is mostly luck and defense involved. But the pitcher's and batter's talent is first on this stat.

High BABIP on not well hit balls is batter's running speed first and luck and defense and talent second. This would be the argument of Ichiro detractors as well, as far as his batting goes.

Pitcher has more control over whether a pitch will be well hit or not well hit than the batter does. His influence increases with the amount of pitches he has and his stuff.

If a pitcher has less pitches, the ones he does has better be mean enough to keep the % of well hit balls down. If he has a lot of pitches he can throw for strikes and they're good enough, the % of well hit balls will be down due to batters being off balance.

Every match up is so deep. Is the batter looking to guess the pitch or is he looking for a mistake pitch? Either way, the pitcher is the one dictating what the the batter has to react to.

BABIP comes into effect after the ball has been put in play. And different things factor in depending on whether the ball was well hit or not. I think as long as the stat is looked at without broken it down further, its misleading.

Excellent post and excellent points.

My point from the get go has been the pitcher can and does control how well a ball is put in play. Good pitchers, when they're "on", control the hitters' bats and allow weakly hit balls. Weakly hit balls, while they will find holes their share of times, result in outs. While hard hit shots will find fielders' mitts their share of the time, it's nothing a pitcher should ever count on if he wants to be successful.

From pretty much the beginning of the game, pitchers have been instructed to change speeds, use both sides of the plate, and throw strikes. If we turn back the clock 100 years to a game in 1912, if a pitcher started to get in trouble by falling behind hitters, the coach would come out and tell him, "Hey, just throw strikes. You have seven guys behind you. Calm down and let 'em hit it." That advice is still given 100 years later. Why? Because it works. No one in their right mind tells a struggling pitcher, "Throw even harder and try to strike everyone out." Sabermatricians have not come up with better advice to give to a struggling pitcher. Believe it or not, those old coaches know what they are talking about.

[Big Oil]

Goody, I think that is accurate as well. BABIP is a tough stat that, although it does well to eliminate some noise, is, as many here have recognized on both sides of the debate, imperfect.

[JustinM]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Perhaps. Or, Maddux was in situations where he didn't have to knuckle down and go after hitters, so if he gave up a few more hits it didn't matter to him as far as the outcome of the game was concerned.

Typically this situation is when there's a starting pitcher with a big lead. This cannot be the case for entire seasons at a time.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by JustinM

Typically this situation is when there's a starting pitcher with a big lead. This cannot be the case for entire seasons at a time.

If the starting pitcher is consistently getting good run support one season compared to others, you might see him give up maybe another hit or so per 9.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Goody

I think if BABIP was broken down into well hit and not well hit it would make much more sense.

High BABIP on well hit balls is mostly luck and defense involved. But the pitcher's and batter's talent is first on this stat.

High BABIP on not well hit balls is batter's running speed first and luck and defense and talent second. This would be the argument of Ichiro detractors as well, as far as his batting goes.

Pitcher has more control over whether a pitch will be well hit or not well hit than the batter does. His influence increases with the amount of pitches he has and his stuff.

If a pitcher has less pitches, the ones he does has better be mean enough to keep the % of well hit balls down. If he has a lot of pitches he can throw for strikes and they're good enough, the % of well hit balls will be down due to batters being off balance.

Every match up is so deep. Is the batter looking to guess the pitch or is he looking for a mistake pitch? Either way, the pitcher is the one dictating what the the batter has to react to.

BABIP comes into effect after the ball has been put in play. And different things factor in depending on whether the ball was well hit or not. I think as long as the stat is looked at without broken it down further, its misleading.

They do break this down just not in the way you talk about. For example if Joe Mauer had a .229 BABIP but a 23 percent line drive rate which around what it usually is they would fully expect him to bring that BABIP to his normal levels.

How its broken down with pitchers is by line drive rate/ground ball/fly ball rate. Flyball pitchers while within the same range usually give up lower BABIP numbers while groundball pitchers normally have higher BABIP numbers but give up less extra base hits. If you want to use line drive rate to judge "well hit balls" MLB pitchers are all in the same ballpark as far as that goes. The lowest linedrive rate will be around 15 percent while the highest will be around 25 percent.

The problem with using line drive rate is right now the current leader in highest line drive rate is Jarrod Paker(who has great stuff) while JA Happ(pretty average pitcher) has the lowest line drive rate. Most pitchers sit in that 19-22 percent range for allowing line drives. I am not sure you can draw any conclusions from line drive rate because 80 percent of them are in the same range.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

From pretty much the beginning of the game, pitchers have been instructed to change speeds, use both sides of the plate, and throw strikes. If we turn back the clock 100 years to a game in 1912, if a pitcher started to get in trouble by falling behind hitters, the coach would come out and tell him, "Hey, just throw strikes. You have seven guys behind you. Calm down and let 'em hit it." That advice is still given 100 years later. Why? Because it works. No one in their right mind tells a struggling pitcher, "Throw even harder and try to strike everyone out." Sabermatricians have not come up with better advice to give to a struggling pitcher. Believe it or not, those old coaches know what they are talking about.

Yes, throw strikes which means eliminate free baserunners(which is exactly what saberheads agree with). And yes change speeds and keep the hitters off balance so you can stay in the big leagues. No one is saying that I could come in and give up the same BABIP as Roy Halladay but I also would never be a big league pitcher. The players at the highest level of talent can naturally keep a hitter off balance otherwise he wont be in the league very long. You are thinking about this way too much. You still need to do the things you were taught to be a big league pitcher however to be successful at the big league level you need to depend on more than having hitters get themselves out.

If a pitcher is giving up a .350+ BABIP over a larger sample size he will be back in triple A ball. As you mentioned in a earlier post in order to be a big league pitcher we need to assume they know how to pitch. Once we assume they already know how to keep hitters off balance and mix up speeds now the part that separates the great from the average is the ability to keep walks down, strikeout more hitters, and keep the ball in the park.

Out of qualified pitchers right 3 out of the 5 highest BABIP averages right now would be pitchers most of us would consider to have above average stuff. Currently they are Porcello, Shields, Josh Johnson, Randy Wolf and Max Sherzer. The current 5 lowest in BABIP right now are Weaver, Hellickson, Verlander, Dempster and Justin Vargas.

Shields had a BABIP last year of .258 while Johnson was at .239. Dempster had a BABIP of .324 last year. Verlander gave up a .319 BABIP 4 years ago. Its just really hard to find any consistency in BABIP numbers over an extended period of time. Verlander has been solid these past 2 years but prior to that he was giving up hits on balls in play at the same rate as everyone else. Shields has went back and forth from good to bad at it for years.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes, throw strikes which means eliminate free baserunners(which is exactly what saberheads agree with). And yes change speeds and keep the hitters off balance so you can stay in the big leagues. No one is saying that I could come in and give up the same BABIP as Roy Halladay but I also would never be a big league pitcher. The players at the highest level of talent can naturally keep a hitter off balance otherwise he wont be in the league very long. You are thinking about this way too much. You still need to do the things you were taught to be a big league pitcher however to be successful at the big league level you need to depend on more than having hitters get themselves out.

Naturally. That applies at any level. But understand that there's two ways of lettin' 'em hit it. The first way is to lay it in there and hope they keep it in the park and hopefully at someone. That's luck. The second way is by moving the ball in and out, up and down, and backwards and forwards (changing speeds) while attacking the strike zone as opposed to trying to get them to bite at pitches off the plate. You're giving the hitter pitches they can hit, they just can't hit them very well so you get the tappers and pop ups. That's skill.

Pitchers don't always make their pitch when they want to, so that's when you see the shots because they got too much of the plate or had to come in with one because they fell behind. Anyone who has ever toed the rubber will tell you that success is a function of luck meeting skill. Luck will get the outs you didn't deserve, either by batters striking themselves out or creaming the ball right at someone. Skill gets you the outs you did deserve-the tappers and pop ups. Just as good luck gets you outs didn't deserve, bad luck allows the hits the batter never should have got-the grounder that finds a hole or the popup that falls just out of reach. But the guys with more skill than luck over the long haul do better than the guys with the luck. Maybe BABIP can measure luck, maybe it can't. It sure does not measure skill.

[Goody]

There's too many factors involved and it comes down to watching the game and evaluating the talent, instead of stats. I wish the Mariners would learn this since I'm a fan. Get away from, and stop teaching, Sabermetrics to your talent. Sure, its useful for game decisions, but not for coaching a young player.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Goody

There's too many factors involved and it comes down to watching the game and evaluating the talent, instead of stats. I wish the Mariners would learn this since I'm a fan. Get away from, and stop teaching, Sabermetrics to your talent. Sure, its useful for game decisions, but not for coaching a young player.

How exactly are they teaching "sabermetrics" to their young talent? As far as I know sabermetrics has never really been a teaching tool but a tool of research. I can see a young player looking at it and saying "hmmm, looks like I might need to take more pitches" or "I need to throw more strikes" but I am not real sure how this is a bad thing. I am thinking the problem with your Mariners is that they dont focus enough on the sabermetric mindset and teams that do like the Oakland A's have surpassed them.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Excellent post and excellent points.

My point from the get go has been the pitcher can and does control how well a ball is put in play. Good pitchers, when they're "on", control the hitters' bats and allow weakly hit balls. Weakly hit balls, while they will find holes their share of times, result in outs. While hard hit shots will find fielders' mitts their share of the time, it's nothing a pitcher should ever count on if he wants to be successful.

From pretty much the beginning of the game, pitchers have been instructed to change speeds, use both sides of the plate, and throw strikes. If we turn back the clock 100 years to a game in 1912, if a pitcher started to get in trouble by falling behind hitters, the coach would come out and tell him, "Hey, just throw strikes. You have seven guys behind you. Calm down and let 'em hit it." That advice is still given 100 years later. Why? Because it works. No one in their right mind tells a struggling pitcher, "Throw even harder and try to strike everyone out." Sabermatricians have not come up with better advice to give to a struggling pitcher. Believe it or not, those old coaches know what they are talking about.

The point is that the control is limited, so it only shows up barely when you try to detect it.

It's not that hard to see why the control is limited actually.

If we set up a stationary bat, how consistently can a pitcher hit certain part of the bat? And then we have to throw in the ability of the batter, and the guess made by the batter on the pitch.

It's not surprising that the pitcher only plays a small part in deciding how a ball is going to be hit. Doesn't it make intuitive sense that hitters control that much more than pitchers?


Your second paragraph isn't related to the discussion. "Throwing even harder" isn't an option, because the pitcher would have tried that before the coach came out. The reason coaches might ask the pitcher to relax a bit is more likely that the pitcher is already tired, but is still trying too hard to throw like he's not tired. When you do that, you could lose form and make things worse. I have no idea how this has anything to do with sabermetrics.

If anything, what sabermetrics would do here is to identify the risks and help the coaches determine their pitcher replacement strategy.