SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Recent Posts
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 1, 2024 20:32:05 GMT -5
"Malancon had the biggest [batting order position] splits I've ever seen! He got creamed by No. 3 and 4 hitters! This was the guy they were going to take and put oin the AL East? A sabermetrically astute organization would never have made those trades."
Peter Keating chose that rant of mine as the next-to-last the bit in his story about me in in the 15th anniversary issue (May 13, 2013) of ESPN The Magazine. The last bit was my question "How many times have they won a playoff game since they laid us off?" [The Sox laid off all of their consultants after 2008, against the wishes of baseball ops. I at least got 6 months severance pay.]
I've spent most of my life as a Sox fan ranting against stupidities of various ilks.
I mean… if you gotta go back 12 years for your example…. And MElancon did go on to be a dominant pitcher for many teams in a number of divisions. Is it possible he just sucked in Boston? He was an All Star at 36 in an NL West which featured a shootout between a 106-win and 107-win team. I hated the first Sale trade. Is that better?
Melancon was already a top reliever when they traded for him -- 2.78 ERA, 20 saves for an Astro team that went 56-106. I checked out a favorite metric of mine and it said it was a really bad choice. I was right. A sportswriter later selected that as an example of what good analysis could do for a team. End of story.
Oh, and recently someone involved admitted that they had really gotten away from analytics in that era, to their detriment. That made me feel better -- I did not choose that criticism as the literal end of the story!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 1, 2024 19:51:00 GMT -5
Not remotely true.
They had all sorts of chances to add a starter from the usual sources when Giolito went down and they chose not to, because they had done something with Cooper Criswell (as planned, no doubt) that makes him a solid sixth starter. They then added Naoyuki Uwasawa whose last three years with the Nippon Ham Fighters had ERA's of 2.81, 3.38, 2.96 in 24, 25, 24 starts -- and it's almost certain that they see something in him that can make him better, because that's how they roll. And they have Richard Fitts whom they are high on (like everyone they have acquired) and is thought to be a couple of months from being MLB ready.
They may be gambling a bit that they don't have to put two guys on the IL before Uwasawa or Fitts fits is ready, but we don't know what the former's time table is.
Hint: one thing that ain't gonna work this year is "the front office made a mistake that I have spotted."
(Case in point: I thought that ownership had vetoed re-signing Duvall, but it's now clear that a) the F.O. had a strong reason to believe that Rafaela would come to ST with hugely better swing decisions, and b) given how late Duvall signed with the Braves, they had him waiting in case they were wrong.) I am glad to see that even with a new cast in the FO, you continue to work from the assumption that they know something no other person or organization does. I call it the “Eric Van/Zach Godley Hypothesis.” I hope you are right, but I’d say, for example, a 30-year old who has never pitched in America and was dumped by the Rays hardly counts as reliable depth. Maybe he is the next Koji-level discovery… but I am nervous to test that. Dumped by the Rays like ... Cooper Criswell?
Did you get that I implied that Uwasawa would be either the #7 or #8 starter? How high is that bar?
Track record of so far with non-established pitchers:
Traded Luis Urías to the Seattle Mariners. Received Isaiah Campbell. Traded Alex Verdugo to the New York Yankees. Received Richard Fitts (minors), Nicholas Judice (minors) and Greg Weissert. Traded Ryan Ammons (minors) to the New York Mets. Received Justin Slaten (minors). Signed Cooper Criswell as a free agent.
they know something no other person or organization does
No, no. The best organizations have figured out ways to make certain types of pitchers better. They have methodologies. It's not a mystic, guy-by-guy thing; it's "this guy fits the profile of guys who would benefit a lot from [X]."
And these teams soon become teams that don't need to add much pitching. So there are likely a few teams saying, damn, that closes the gap some, but we are full up with guys that are as good or better.
A final note ... one thing I have learned of late is that pessimists have no idea how they sound to other, else they would STF up. It's tiresome.
I mean, seriously ... I spend all winter arguing that the alleged bad rotation will be great, and so far it's playing just out as I thought ... and you feel compelled to go after any optimism over the #7 or 8 starter?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 1, 2024 18:45:23 GMT -5
I am glad to see that even with a new cast in the FO, you continue to work from the assumption that they know something no other person or organization does. I call it the “Eric Van/Zach Godley Hypothesis.” I hope you are right, but I’d say, for example, a 30-year old who has never pitched in America and was dumped by the Rays hardly counts as reliable depth. Maybe he is the next Koji-level discovery… but I am nervous to test that. The Red Sox are always smarter than everybody else because they are Eric's favorite team, which sounds like a scientifically valid basis for his assumption, lol Let's hope one day we really can assume that. "Malancon had the biggest [batting order position] splits I've ever seen! He got creamed by No. 3 and 4 hitters! This was the guy they were going to take and put oin the AL East? A sabermetrically astute organization would never have made those trades."
Peter Keating chose that rant of mine as the next-to-last the bit in his story about me in in the 15th anniversary issue (May 13, 2013) of ESPN The Magazine. The last bit was my question "How many times have they won a playoff game since they laid us off?" [The Sox laid off all of their consultants after 2008, against the wishes of baseball ops. I at least got 6 months severance pay.]
I've spent most of my life as a Sox fan ranting against stupidities of various ilks.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 1, 2024 13:12:55 GMT -5
Don’t let anyone get hurt patting themselves on backs… because the rotation has tons of talent and zero depth. If these 5 stay healthy, they will make lots of people eat their words. But my fingers remain crossed. Not remotely true.
They had all sorts of chances to add a starter from the usual sources when Giolito went down and they chose not to, because they had done something with Cooper Criswell (as planned, no doubt) that makes him a solid sixth starter. They then added Naoyuki Uwasawa whose last three years with the Nippon Ham Fighters had ERA's of 2.81, 3.38, 2.96 in 24, 25, 24 starts -- and it's almost certain that they see something in him that can make him better, because that's how they roll. And they have Richard Fitts whom they are high on (like everyone they have acquired) and is thought to be a couple of months from being MLB ready.
They may be gambling a bit that they don't have to put two guys on the IL before Uwasawa or Fitts fits is ready, but we don't know what the former's time table is.
Hint: one thing that ain't gonna work this year is "the front office made a mistake that I have spotted."
(Case in point: I thought that ownership had vetoed re-signing Duvall, but it's now clear that a) the F.O. had a strong reason to believe that Rafaela would come to ST with hugely better swing decisions, and b) given how late Duvall signed with the Braves, they had him waiting in case they were wrong.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 1, 2024 5:41:29 GMT -5
I'm repeating myself but that was the highlight. Consider that as a group they outpitched one of the best rotations in MLB. They won two, should have had three, and could have had four if everything fell right. A few more observations; Rafaela just radiates baseball smarts in the field on the basepaths, and even at the plate; the additions to the relief corps are a game changer (of course); it's early but the trade for O'Neill looks like it may have been grand theft. Ultimately, the deal was 2 months of Kiké for a year of O'Neill, plus Victor Santos for Justin Hagemann. The intermediary, Nick Robertson, has a 6.75 ERA in two outings for Memphis.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 1, 2024 4:49:57 GMT -5
Sox pitchers lead MLB in both xwOBA (.276) and wOBA (.226). They are second in expected vs. actual, and some of that is defense.
O'Neill's 2 HR in 10 AB against the 6th / 7th best pitchers (including those 2 homers allowed) is easily the most impressive rate-wise in MLB.
.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 31, 2024 23:05:47 GMT -5
I'm a little disappointed that Whitlcok allowed the combined starting pitcher ERA to go up.
Yeah, from 1.59 to 1.64.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 30, 2024 12:37:35 GMT -5
We lose one nothing and people are blaming Cora? We start 7 games in a row on the west coast, Winchowski was stretched out a bit and we needed him to go two to try and save the bullpen a bit for the next 5 straight games Not blaming Cora. I am simply pointing out that Winc, after dominating for five batters, lost it. And that high leverage relievers tend only to be good for short stretches. Instead of recognizing that Winc had lost it, and was getting worse, Cora left him in there to flounder with two rested relievers sitting in the pen. Winc did not suddenly regain his stuff, and gave up an absolute rocket, because of course he did. The only reason Winc did not give up multiple runs was because Casas happened to be standing in a lucky spot and the ball hit him in the glove. Leaving Winc in there was a terrible decision. It ultimately did not change the fortunes of this game, but that was due purely to luck. Also, he’s not useable today as a result. Oh, so at the point where Winck had fanned four out of five hitters and needed to get just one more out, you shouted at the TV, "get somebody warmed up here, he might lose it at any moment!"
Whereupon he induced a hard grounder hit exactly halfway between first and second, that's an out more often than not (57% of the time. I scored it as a possible or likely out on my scorecard, just by eyeballs.) Polanco's liner was just a 64% hit, so the the two balls put into play had 1.07 expected hits and 0.93 outs , so, there was no luck involved at all.
Meanwhile, if you started warming someone up after the first walk, when they had the mound conference, it's unclear that the reliever would have been ready after six more pitches had been thrown.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 30, 2024 0:37:12 GMT -5
this is the quality product mlb umpiring gives us in a tense game leading off the ninth inning Declines in Win Probability, key plays
Dalbec fans to end 7th: 14% (versus drawing a walk)
Story grounds out to end 8th: 21%% (ditto)
Umpire turns Casas leadoff walk to out in 9th: 22%
Crawford homers (versus making an out): 19%
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 28, 2024 18:54:22 GMT -5
Best: WS Champs. Worst (assuming ordinary injury rates): I spend all winter pointing out that the last-place Sox would have made the postseason in two or more other divisions. Nobody cares.
I've been a Sox fan since 1962 and an analytically informed one since 1971, when I read Percentage Baseball and pledged my soul to OBP and SA. And the current Sox rotation has a very strong chance at being the best I've ever seen.
(Yeah, that sounds crazy. So did my prediction for the '21 team, 92 wins and the 1st WC. I can't give that kind of prediction this year because I have not followed the rest of the division at all.)
Here's a rundown, a short, pointed version of the analysis I've been doing all winter.
My stat (as always) is xwOBA allowed, the best single stat in all of baseball: SO, BB, HB, exit velocity, and launch angle. Rankings are among the top 150 pitchers in PA.
12th. Rank of Bryan Bello of all starting pitchers from June 1 on ... if you ignore the three terrible outings he had pitching at day, and on 4 days rest to boot.
And you should. Not all outcomes on the playing field are predictive. Identifying and eliminating the ones that aren't gives you hugely better projections. (The success of that methodology was a decent chunk of why John Henry hired me personally.) In this case, we can expect Bello to find an effective between-starts regimen for that combination, just as he he found them last year for day games and for four days rest (to a statistically significant degree). Oh, and this rankings does include 4 meh to bad outings in the two problem situations, while he was in the process of figuring them out.)
8th. Rank of Nick Pivetta of all pitchers, beginning at the end of June when he introduced his sweeper and rebooted his cutter. He was actually worse as a reliever, so I included that.
2nd. Rank of Kutter Crawford of all starting pitchers on the season, when there wasn't a runner in scoring position with first base open. He was 10th worst when there was, and 10th best overall. I assume they will have him fix whatever he was doing wrong in that situation.
This is admittedly rather misleading given that they rarely let him go past five innings. But there's a lot of headroom between 2nd best in MLB and #2 starter, which seems like a reasonable expectation.
2nd. Rank of Tanner Houck among all starters, over innings 1 through 3, at the time he was injured. He was 25th worst from innings 4 on.
Even though there were numerous stories about his being unable to do any off-season work last winter, and how he had worked his ass off this winter to go deeper in games .... the entire planet seems to think he has a reliever's repertoire. Christopher Gasper in today's Globe: Houck needs a third pitch pitch to stick as a starter. It would have taken him maybe two minutes to get this pitch breakdown (same data set that has him at #2):
(MLB average, all pitches, .322)
.159 / .110. Splitter. (I'm including wOBA because that's what someone actually watching the games would see.) .226 / .183. Slider .226 / .193. Cutter. Also his #3 pitch by usage (slider was 1, sinker 2).
.272 / .202. Sinker
1st. Rank of Garret Whitock in innings 1 through 4 by a wide margin in his first three starts in 2022. He pretty clearly strained something when they send him out for a 5th inning in his 3rd start, and he hit 60 pitches for the first time in more or less forever. (Yes, he qualifies, ranking 150th in PA at that point in the season. He would have qualified more easily with IP, but Statcast doesn't have that.)
I'm going to post this now and add bit more about Whitlock later ... his decline in innings 1 through 4 in his remaining six starts, versus the first three, was easily significant statistically. I think he's fully healthy for the first time since them.
(I'm also going to double-check my negative rankings, which I did through memory!)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 21, 2024 15:35:26 GMT -5
If they do give some time to Rafaela at 2B, it will also be interesting to see who gets the most CF time. Lot's of valid options there, just none as good as him. I know Cora had mentioned a platoon at 2B. Typically that’s a L/R thing, but depending on 1) how long Grissom is out, and 2) how comfortable Rafaela is both at 2B and switching between infield and outfield, there’s a case to be made for a de facto defensive platoon. Sox 2024 Starting Pitchers: Groundball to Fly-ball Ratio in 2023 Bello - 1.94 Houck - 1.92 Whitlock - 1.20 Pivetta - .87 Crawford - .71 No pitcher will be upset with having Rafaela’s defense in center. But the number of plays there will be different on days when it’s say Kutter Crawford out there (a heavy fly ball pitcher), as opposed to someone like Bello (where Rafaela might often get the ball in center merely after it’s squeaked by the second baseman) - and I don’t think it’s insane to speculate Rafaela would be the best non-Story defensive 2B on the roster. (With that said, we’re also talking about a 23 year old rookie here just trying to crack the team - asking him to be constantly moving around while he’s adapting to the big leagues is a big ask.) Ratios can get you in trouble. Crawford last year had a 98 where 100 = average number of balls hit into the air. Bello (starting in June), Pivetta (once he introduced his sweeper) and Houck were 85, 84, and 86 respectively. Whitlock was 101 in 2021-22. So there's likely 2 dead-average starters and a trio of GB types.
The numbers for grounders, 137 Bello, 126 Houck, 102 Whitlock, 79 Crawford, 77 Pivetta.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2024 20:51:38 GMT -5
I'll echo a couple of the previous critiques - I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but there seem to be other factors. Your control group, as it were, is the guys who continue to succeed from the fourth inning onward, meaning that you're kind of pre-selecting your sample of guys who are going to have both strong stamina and stuff. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch. If the theory was correct, then high-stamina players who are more average-ish would hold their results better into the games, but you've filtered that group out of the sample. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch.
As opposed to Houck?.
Looking at innings 1 to 3 for both, Houck when he got injured versus Strider's whole season ...
Houck trailed Strider in xwOBA just .226 to .202, and (for what it's worth, but it's what most folks are looking at), topped him in wOBA, .183 to .223. Houck had a bit more than twice the gloveside run (11.5" to 5.6") and 3.1" more of downward movement (15.8" to 12.7", relative to the average FB). Overall, 40% more movement. Strider had a bit more velo, 85.7 to 84.0 (but Houck has more velo relative to his FB, and that may be the more important factor).. Further comparison is tougher, given that they used very different pitch-use strategies, and pitch usage of course affects results; for instance, it's well established that the more you throw a pitch, the less effective it becomes (the recent continued increase in SO is a function of everyone throwing their FB less often). Strider threw his slider 27% of the time vs. LHB and 41% vs. RHB; in contrast, Houck threw his slider … 28% vs. LHD and 42% vs. RHB. But what’s surrounding this coincidence (?) is very different, especially vs. LHB (57% for Strider, 51% for Houck). Strider went 62-27-19, 4Seam / Slider / Change, while Houck was 29-28-18-16-9, Cutter/ Slider / Splitter / 4Seam / Sinker. Lefties facing Strider have to look out for the FB, and in fact they did well in innings 1-3, .346 xwOBA, .347 wOBA. I think that with Houck, more hitters are guessing slider, and that’s going to inflate his xwOBA at least a bit. Strider was a pure 2-pitch guy vs. RHP, 58-41, and had a huge split --.331 / .345 with the FB and .162 / .171 with the slider. Again, I don’t think a RHB can afford to guess slider when he has to be hunting for a hittable fastball, which we know existed. Houck was 49-42-5-2-2, Sinker / Slider / 4Seam / Cutter / Splitter, which is to say, Strider's approach but with one in six FD replaced with one of three other pitches. (And it worked: 5 PA, .238 / .178.)
Strider is using his FB to make the slider more effective, which is a very common strategy. Houck is kind of on his own with the pitch, with more guesses available for the hitters. I won't dispute the claim that Strider's slider is baseball's best pitch in context, but I think there’s a good argument that Houck’s slider is better than Strider’s in a vacuum. That 40% extra movement – which puts him with the best-breaking slides on the planet – stands out in a way that Strider can’t match. Just imagine what slider results Houck could get if he had a 97 mph FB.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 13, 2024 3:55:33 GMT -5
I'll echo a couple of the previous critiques - I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but there seem to be other factors. Your control group, as it were, is the guys who continue to succeed from the fourth inning onward, meaning that you're kind of pre-selecting your sample of guys who are going to have both strong stamina and stuff. Like, Spencer Strider holds his stuff well, but his slider is also baseball's best pitch. If the theory was correct, then high-stamina players who are more average-ish would hold their results better into the games, but you've filtered that group out of the sample. I guess my concern is that I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that stamina was the variable here.
I'm trying and failing to come up with a snappy answer here, given that the fact that pitchers tire as they pitch, to the point that they need to be removed from the game, is about as well established as the fact that there are four "bases" rather than three or five.
We do not need to look for another factor. The only question here is whether the only other factor that has been proposed -- that smaller pitch repertoires also contribute to the quality decay -- is correct or not.
So, I did quite a bit more number-crunching.
First, I calculated the collective drop-off of all my 74 qualifying guys. It's .032 worth of xwOBA. I then normalized all the individual numbers to that. Merrill Kelley, for instance, was .001 worse starting in the 4th inning, but compared to the average pitcher, he's .030 good (the other .001 is a rounding fluke).
I then decided to add guys to the database, and figured everyone that was .030 or more, good or bad, was a nice compromise, since adding the data by hand is a pain. It turns out that in both the good and bad sets, there is nobody between .030 and .026, so that was an obvious place to draw a line. So I now have data for 19 bad guys and 18 good ones.
Finally, I weighted the contribution of each pitcher to the aggregate performance of their group. That is, Houck's (normalized) .101 means that he makes about twice the contribution to the aggregate performance of the bad group that Max Scherxer does, at .049.
So I can derive the average pitch profile of the good and bad groups. These are the percentage of the time the average guy in the group throws his fave pitch, his sec fave, and so on.
GOOD 45 26 14 09 04 01 BAD 40 27 16 10 06 02
So the bad gang throws their fave pitch 11% less often than the good gang, and distributes the difference more or less equally across the reamonder.
The repertoire-size hypothesis predicts the opposite.
Given that the pitchers included have an average weight of .050 and the pitches not yet included are .015 ... you're just never going to get there.
It does make sense that pitches with fatigue try to compensate by mixing their pitchers more.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 12, 2024 18:03:00 GMT -5
Maybe I am being dense, but I am missing what the connection is between pitch use and stamina. Is the idea that a tiring pitcher will go to their weaker offerings more often? Why? As for Houck, he looks about as good as any pitcher in the world in the first 3 innings or so. If he just had a regular gig of pitching 3 innings every four days he could rack up 120 IP, which is already 2/3rds of a starting pitcher's load. He could be super valuable in that role, and a real weapon in the playoffs. There's no connection. The standard take on the times-around-order affect is that pitchers start the game going to their best pitch or two and later in the game they need a deeper repertoire to succeed, as the hitters have acclimated themselves to the pitches they've already seen. I'm calling that nonsensical, in the age of video. Houck spent the 22-23 winter recovering from surgery and unable to keep up his stamina, let alone work on it.
As for Houck, he looks about as good as any pitcher in the world in the first 3 innings or so.
And that is how good his stuff is.
Look, imagine that the only thing you knew about Houck was the following:
1) Of the 150 starting pitchers who had the most PA in innings 1 to 3, he ranked 2nd in xwOBA allowed, with .244.
2) He had this pitch breakdown in these innings: Pitch Pitches PA xwOBA Slider 201 50 .226 Sinker 166 39 .272 Cutter 91 30 .226 4-Seam 62 16 .348 Split 59 16 .159 3) Among the same 150 guys he ranked 125th from inning 4 on, with .376.
How would you explain #3? That's not a reliever's pitch profile. I can't think of anything other than running out of the proverbial gas.
And if you formed that hypothesis and then looked for evidence, you'd say, nailed it! You'd discover that Houck missed the entire preceding winter recovering from surgery, that he felt certain that this was the cause of his problems, and that he had proudly worked his butt off this winter.
You may recall that when he came up I discovered that his slider movement was among the best in MLB and the sinker wasn't far behind. The cutter and splitter seem to be terrific pitches as well. I do wonder whether he should reduce the 4-seamer to an occasional keep-em-honest pitch, which is to say the new regime will either do that or (better, of course)) transform it into a solid pitch. It doesn't have a lot of movement.
BTW, if you saw his My Story, you know his makeup is impressive.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 12, 2024 15:50:59 GMT -5
Also with many pitchers trying to max out each pitch these days it’s not surprising they don’t have the stamina to sustain performance for longer outings Yes. It no longer makes sense to pace yourself given that quality and depth of bullpens.
What I have encountered again and again is tales of young pitchers learning that getting in shape to pitch 7 of even 6 innings at the MLB level takes a lot more work than they ever imagined.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 12, 2024 15:46:07 GMT -5
I don't doubt that this sort of thing happens, but the idea that hitters as a rule get a measurable edge from seeing a pitcher a second and third time -- as opposed to getting an edge because the pitcher is continually tiring -- just make sense no me.
There's a lot less evidence here than you think. But one thing that counters your lightly supported theory is that familiarity with relief pitchers is starting to be understood as an issue in the playoffs. And of course on a longer time scale we are all familiar with the relative success the Sox had with Mariano Rivera in the days of yore when it seems the Sox-Yanks were playing tense playoff style games every other week. Just because you want to "prove" a specific Sox starter is better than non Eric Van's think he is doesn't really mean you can toss all examples of familiarity effecting the pitcher-batter matchup. Career familiarity, at least in the era before ubiquitous video to study, was very real. This is hugely different from the within-game version.
I did these splits for the Sox. A career familiarity split was at the heart of my convincing Jed Hoyer to convince Tito to bench David Ortiz against Mike Maroth have Doug Mirabelli (!) DH instead (May 3, 2005). Maroth fit the profile of guys Mirabelli could hit, Mirabelli had awful familiarity splits (pitchers have or had the edge for the first 8 PA, career) but he had already gone yard against Maroth, IIRC the 4th time he saw him. Mirabelli hit a GS with the Sox trailing 2-1 and that was it for the scoring.
Hideki Okajima, with his straight over-the-top delivery, had a huge such split. Some of you may remember Barry Bonds facing him for the first time and taking strike three right down the middle! The only time I got into trouble with the Sox was when I told Zack Scott (who had replaced Jed as the speaker-of-consultants-to Francona, and in his first stab at the job wasn't very good at talking him into anything) that he could not pitch Okajima in a high-leverage situation in this series ... whereupon Tito did exactly that and we immediately lost, a very tough loss at that. I was so upset that I fired off a "why am I doing all this work if my advice is being ignored?" complaint and I heard from (IIRC) Jed to the tune of "this is not helping."
It would be very interesting to know if this effect is still in place now that we have video and even machines that can simulate a specific pitcher.
As I said, the concept that in every game all the hitters get an edge in PA 2 versus 1, and 3 versus 2, is completely different.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 11, 2024 23:41:49 GMT -5
I know I spent most of the winter trying to convince folks that the ability to go deep into games was largely a function of stamina (versus fatigue) rather than depth of arsenal (pitch variety). I was wrong, and I apologize.
It's entirely about stamina. Let me first give you the reasons this makes sense, and then the facts that back it up.
First, in modern baseball players have film of their opposition that they study before a game. There's not a heck of a lot of room left for new discoveries or insights. You're basically looking for guys who couldn't sleep much at night after a huge arguing with their wife, or chose not to (for opposite reasons) with their girlfriend.
But the big thing that everyone overlooks is that the supposed acclimation to the opponent is a double sided coin. The pitchers are not only watching the hitters and looking for differences from the scouting report, they are also monitoring themselves.
I don't doubt that this sort of thing happens, but the idea that hitters as a rule get a measurable edge from seeing a pitcher a second and third time -- as opposed to getting an edge because the pitcher is continually tiring -- just make sense no me.
Some Facts.
The impetus for this study was of course Tanner Houck. Hocuk last year in his first 8 starts had had a 0.38 ERA in innings 1 through 3 and a 12.50 thereafter. In his last 5 starts before his injury this became 3.00 and 6.30, so be might have started pacing himself. Overall, 1.38 vs. 10.05. That was a .244 xwOBA versus .376.
So I did the following:
-- Looked at all the starting pitchers up to two days after Houck's injury (to grab further gus in his rotation)
-- Took the 150 who faced the most hitters -- Selected the 84 who were above average through innings 3 -- Removed 8 guys whose PA after inning three were less than 70% of those in the first 3 innings. (The remaining pitchers averaged 93%.)
-- Identified the 10 pitchers who fared best in innings 4+ relative to 1-3, and the 10 worst.
We can name the groups after their champions: Strider-Types vs. Houck-Types
I then put their pitch use percentages into the spreadsheet, in order from most favorite to least used. For instance, Zach Grienke was 26 20 17 16 14 7, while Joe Ryan was 57 27 11 5. (These are totals across all innings.)
So, how did the struggling Houck-Types pitch, compared to the killer Strider-Types?
The usage level of #2 and #3 pitches were all over the map. You might have expect that. But there were clear trends for favorite pitch use, and for total 4th to sixth pitches, total.
And this is what you see:
The Houck-Types threw their fave pitches 16% less than the Strider-Types (41% vs. 48%), and their 4 to 6 pitches 56% more (19% versus 12%).
(Yes, this is backwards from what people believe.)
Put another way: in this sample, there's little difference between these two types, except that once in 14 pitches the guys who flourish going deep in games go to their favorite pitch while the guys who struggle doing so use one of the extra ones.
Ideally you'd use the full season and grab everyone who was more than 0.5 standard deviations better or worse than average. Given that in this sample, the reverse case (#1 pitches) just misses being statistically significant (p = .08), there's no way the full study is going to indicate a real effect in the supposed direction.
----
My favorite Times Around Order Split:
.673 / .673 / .611 (OPS)
Pitches: 43% sinker, 42% 4-seamer, 15% slider.
Justin Masterson, 2011.
That winter I did a study of this question, and the only thing I could find was that ace pitchers almost always had a usable 4th pitch.
It's all stamina, folks. And given that Houck, Crawford, and Whitlock have all devoted themselves to improving theirs this year, that's good news.
`
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 29, 2024 19:14:25 GMT -5
He had 5 starts in September. The next to last was a day game on 4 days rest, a combo he had dealt with just twice, which means he hadn't the time to develop a between-starts routine as he had earlier done for the separate challenges of 4 days rest and day games. I'll run the numbers at the end and you'll agree that they were meaningless as a skill measure.
In is other 4 starts, he threw his change, sinker, and slider a total of 300 times resulting in 75 PA. (Actual numbers, not rounded!)
He allowed a .201 xwOBA and .242 wOBA. That's note a "fade," folks; it's a strong CY candidate's numbers.
Alas, he threw his four-seamer 89 times for 19 PA and had a .433 xwOBA and .696 wOBA.
Oops.
How did it fair before September? I'm excluding the 8 games where he struggled at day or on 4 days rest.
This is xwOBA, wOBA, starts, pitches, PA
.388 / .347, 4, 98, 21 May
.245 / .131, 5, 131, 31 June
.365 / .578, 6, 98. 22 July / August
Worst case is he junks the 4-seamer, but look at that June: 131 pitches and a .131 wOBA allowed.
-----
His June 20 start, xwOBA, wOBA, pitches, PA:
.768 / .801, 23, 8 sinker .453 / .615, 21, 4 slider .244 / .577, 20, 5 change .474 / .474, 18, 3 4-seam
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 27, 2024 23:30:59 GMT -5
Jim Callis: "My favorite part of the spring is watching top prospects try to grab a starting role in the big leagues for the first time. Here are five I'm monitoring closely" ... Rafaela is the 5th guy.
I think the decision here is very easy. If he makes such a large advance offensively that he would be upset to be sent down, he's your opening day CF. Otherwise, back to Woo. Getting a look at Abreu as an everyday player with the opposition having a scouting report on him doesn't suck.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 27, 2024 23:04:23 GMT -5
I use Fubo as my main source for TV. $80/mo which includes any channel I could think of including NESN I just junked the cable portion of my Comcast / Xfinity with the intent of switching to Fubo a few days before the Oscars. I believe they have the Sox in 4K, and I have the gear to use it. It'll save me $60 a month, too.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 27, 2024 22:33:24 GMT -5
He threw a splitter last year didn’t he? Might’ve been classified more as a changeup last year. I was reading an article where it was coming from himself that he’s trying to add a split He threw his splitter 163 times last year, 44 of them ending a PA, with a .273 xwOBA.
That ranked 87th among the 212 pitchers who had 40+ PA on their splitter or change -- 59th percentile. Great pitch in the big real of things, solid above-average pitch relative to other off-speed pitches.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 26, 2024 21:18:24 GMT -5
Final numbers! (Including the bulk outing.)
Kutter Crawford faced 63 hitters with runners on and 1B base open, and had a .416 xwOBA, which ranked as the 7th worst performance among the 150 SP who faced the most hitters.
(He also ranked 40th worst in his 8 PA with runners on the corners, with a .381 xwOBA. The average sample size was 14, but you would still expect some correlation with overall pitching ... and in fact there was hone at all (slightly negative, actually). That was the situation toughest to handle with the new SB rules, and the lack of correlation can be attributed to pitchers taking widely different approaches. In any case, it didn't affect his numbers tangibly.)
Without these two problem areas he had a .261 xwOBA (in 375 PA), which ranked second, and he still ranks second with the 8 runners on the corners included.
Honest question: Does anyone have an educated guess about much of this is noise and how much is actually attributable to a difference in approach when 1B is open? Like, after how many hitters faced would we expect real differences in runner-on scenarios to stabilize? Or, if we were to examine a veteran SP's 10-year career, would we see substantial (say, .100 or more) year-to-year variations in xwOBA for, e.g., 1B open or RISP. I'd love it to be real, obviously, because it would suggest that Crawford's biggest problem is simply one of approach, but I don't know how to think about what seems like a really small sample. Significance is a function both of sample size and effect size.
If you’re otherwise the second best starting pitcher in baseball facing 383 hitters but the seventh worst (of 150) facing 63 hitters in a situation where we know pitches often alter their approach – that’s a mind-boggling effect size, together with a likely explanation.
I’d have to have the xwOBA of every plate appearance of both types to put a number on the odds, and Statcast doesn't have that data handy. (I can work around it and might do so later).
The totals PA, by the way, were enough to not need an adjustment for small sample size.
Year to year pitching performances differ for real. A single season has some chance of being one data point ... but last last both Pivetta and and Bello became different pitchers after the first two months.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 26, 2024 0:48:45 GMT -5
Final numbers! (Including the bulk outing.)
Kutter Crawford faced 63 hitters with runners on and 1B base open, and had a .416 xwOBA, which ranked as the 7th worst performance among the 150 SP who faced the most hitters.
(He also ranked 40th worst in his 8 PA with runners on the corners, with a .381 xwOBA. The average sample size was 14, but you would still expect some correlation with overall pitching ... and in fact there was hone at all (slightly negative, actually). That was the situation toughest to handle with the new SB rules, and the lack of correlation can be attributed to pitchers taking widely different approaches. In any case, it didn't affect his numbers tangibly.)
Without these two problem areas he had a .261 xwOBA (in 375 PA), which ranked second, and he still ranks second with the 8 runners on the corners included.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 23, 2024 4:49:04 GMT -5
OK, this is a very big step forward.
Crawford actually didn't have a RISP problem. He had a first base open problem.
Recall that he had a .262 xwOBA allowed without RISP, including his tremendous bulk game.
With runners on 1st and 2nd, 1st and 3rd, or the bases full, he had a .258 -- without including the bulk game.
He had 73 PA with a man on 2B, 3B, or both, and gave up a .418 xwOBA.
And of course pitchers change their approach with men on but first base open ... especially with good hitters up.
I also found decently strong suggestion that stamina was a factor, including stamina within innings, but that's a small factor in comparison.
He's worked all winter to add stamina. All he needs is for someone to tell him to ignore the fact that first base is open.
What I think was happening ... OK, no need to come right at him, let's see if I can get him to chase outside the zone ... damn, that didn't work, but I don't want to walk him.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 17, 2024 18:31:57 GMT -5
A bit more, with updated numbers from Statcast ... I checked the top 30 starting pitchers by xwOBA (of the 150 that had the most PA) for bulk starts ... Crawford was the only one who even pitched in relief, and his 7-inning bulk outing was the only one by any of the 30.
Crawford ranked 10th in xwOBA, with a .285. Here's some new numbers, all including the bulk outing ... With the bases empty he faced 282 hitters and had (again) a .285 xwOBA, which ranked 18th. With a runner just on first, he faced 87 hitters and had a .184 xwOBA. The leaderboard: .182 Taril Skubal (.008 added for regression to mean in small sample size, 62)
.184 Crawford .229 Zack Wheeler (142 PA) .236 Cristopher Sanchez (.004 added for 75 PA; see the geekabe note at the end) .251 Bobby Miller (87 PA)
After that the rankings are closely clustered. What Skubal and Crawford did was insane. And Skubol led MLB in xwOBA with .246 (.235 before regression). Here's the top 5 pitchers for non-RISP PA : Name Non-RISP RISP Ratio Tarik Skubold .226 .348 1.54 (adjusted for sample size) Kutter Crawford .262 .365 1.39 Zack Elfin .264 .301 1.14 Zack Wheeler .264 .340 1.29 Freddy Peralta .268 .357 1.33
Wow. This is somewhat of a thing. The MLB average for RISP is .329. While Crawford was hit hardest, Peralta was not far behind. Eflin was the only guy who was better than average.
All of these made the top 15 xwOBA (= ace-level performance) out of the 150 that faced the most hitters. I did the other 10 xwOBA aces and the worst case was Max Scherzer, a .333 with RISP and a ratio 1.22.
Some thoughts:
If this were just one or two guys, and the effect size smaller, you'd say "luck." But 4 guys whose median performance translates to 2nd best in MLB with no RISP and 28th worst with RISO--super ace vs. average 5th starer? Not happening.
Splits by bases empty / runners on are common and can be ascribed to pitching better or worse out of the stretch. Those splits should be be looked at.
I still suspect that this is at least partly a psychological thing. If a pitcher has RISP rarely, does he tend to put too emphasis on them? Overthinking it, and/or trying to be too fine, getting behind in the count and then forcing things?
Zack Wheeler's ERA off-year looks like it may have been entirely a product of bad RISP outcomes. Comparing his 2023 to the few previous years might be very helpful.
It blows my mind that you can be the second best stating pitcher in MLB without runners in scoring position and the 19th worst (out of 150) with.
The next step is to do all 150 starting pitchers, broken down multiple ways. Easier than it sounds ... maybe next week.
Next: Houck.
|
|
|