-
Buy the book
The Cheater's Guide to Baseball
"Derek Zumsteg should be ashamed to have such comprehensive knowledge of the history of cheating in baseball. Pete Rose gave me two to one odds this book would become a classic." -- Allen Barra, author of The Last Coach: A Life of Paul "Bear" Bryant
The Statistical King
You guys seemed to enjoy the breakdowns I did on Gil Meche recently, so let’s writeup King Felix from a similar perspective. After another good outing last night, everyone seems to agree that the King is back on track and pitching like we expected from the outset. So let’s break him down by month, and see where the improvement has come from.
Month IP BB% K% GB% FB% LD% HR/FB FIP xFIP ERA April 26.2 10% 23% 56% 25% 19% 25% 4.89 3.52 5.06 May 35.2 7% 22% 53% 25% 22% 21% 4.35 3.29 6.31 June 34.2 4% 20% 59% 23% 18% 13% 3.17 3.04 3.37 July 26.1 12% 19% 59% 27% 15% 15% 4.79 4.40 3.42 August 13 10% 17% 70% 16% 14% 0% 2.97 3.63 1.38
Lots of numbers there, so, here’s a quick overview, by component, and what it’s meant to his run prevention by month:
BB% - He threw a lot of strikes in June, but other than that, he’s still struggled with his command. 10% walk rates aren’t death, but they’re still something that can be improved upon. He’s not really cutting down on his walks lately, so this isn’t the key to his improvement.
K% - He’s actually missing less bats as the year goes on, as he’s struck out fewer batters each month than the previous. His 18% strikeout rate the last 5 weeks is actually just a tick above average. This certainly isn’t the cause for the improvement.
GB%/FB%/LD% - He’s getting more groundballs, less fly balls, and less line drives lately, and that has certainly helped. This is definitely part of the improvement, but the difference isn’t big enough to explain the rebound entirely. The LD% is probably due for a spike going forward, as 14% line drives isn’t sustainable.
HR/FB% - And here’s 95% of the improvement, right here. A league average starting pitcher will allow 11-12% HR/FB rate, and significant variance from that is in almost every case unsustainable. Felix’s HR/FB rate was an absurd 25% in April, a still awful 21% in May, then an almost normal 13% in June, slightly high 15% in July, and he has yet to give up a home run in either start in August. The August number isn’t an abberation, as you might think from the percentage, since he’s only given up six fly balls total in his last two starts.
His Fielding Independent ERA basically tracks the difference in run prevention if his HR/FB rate was indeed a true skill, and you can see how big of a difference home runs make. xFIP translates HR/FB rate into a league average number, eliminating that “skill” from the analysis, and gives a pretty clear picture that Felix hasn’t really changed much at all. Outside of July, he’s posted consistent xFIPs in the 3.00-3.60 range, which is outstanding. For comparison, Johan Santana’s xFIP for the season is 3.42. Roy Halladay’s is 3.57. That’s the class of pitcher that Felix has been in most of the year, by xFIP.
This is about as clear a picture as one could paint for why ERA is not a good tool for predicting pitcher performance going forward. The only thing that has significantly changed for Felix from April to August is the amount of his flyballs that go over the wall. That entire change, mostly out of his control, has led to the mirage of improvement.
Felix has been pitching mostly well all year. ERA just didn’t do a good job of telling people that.
Comments
-
USSM uses and recommends
Concerning the homeruns I think we have seen a few instances where on a full count Felix served up a fastball down the middle that got deposited in the outfield seats. So it seems that some of the high homerun rates may not be bad luck only but bad pitch selection as well.
Sure, and I’ve covered that in the Charting Felix series. Some of them really were bad pitches. But everyone hangs a curve every once in a while - Felix’s mistakes were just getting punished more often than everyone else’s. That’s the part that wasn’t sustainable.
I should also note that Felix’s HR/FB rate will probably be a little north of 11-12% as long as he maintains his low FB%. Pitchers who throw a lot of sinkers and pitch down in the zone are more prone to have their pitches up in the zone get taken out of the park than guys who try to pitch up in the zone.
In other words, when a groundball pitcher throws a pitch up in the zone, it’s a mistake, and mistakes are more likely to get hammered. When a flyball pitcher throws a pitch up in the zone, it may or may not be a mistake.
So Felix, Derek Lowe, Jake Westbrook, these guys should be expected to post slightly higher than normal HR/FB rates. But nothing close to the absurdity of his early season HR/FB numbers.
So, Dave, would you say that this is luck, or that he’s finally learning how to pitch rather than just throw? Or is it that Chaves and Johjima are leaning less on the fastball?
Is his drop in K’s a concern?
I’ll second that last question, since Felix el Rey’s falling K rate has me worried, too.
So, Dave, would you say that this is luck, or that he’s finally learning how to pitch rather than just throw? Or is it that Chaves and Johjima are leaning less on the fastball?
A little of both. He made some mistakes last night that didn’t get hit well - that’s luck, for the most part. But he’s also using his slider a lot more lately, and he’s not pitching as predictably as he had in earlier starts - that’s learning how to pitch. The big thing last night was that the fastball was consistently down in the strike zone, unlike most of the rest of the year. The fastball is a fine pitch if he can locate it at the knees. It gets him in trouble when its belt high.
Is his drop in K’s a concern?
Not really, no. The more I watch him pitch, the more I think he’s going to evolve into a Roy Halladay type of pitcher. He clearly prefers to get groundballs, and doesn’t go for strikeouts with the bases empty. He’ll throw 0-2 pitches in hittable spots trying to induce a ground ball, rather than putting one in the dirt for a swing-and-a-miss. He’ll go for the K with runners on, and he gets it pretty frequently.
I think his lowered strikeout rate is intentional, and goes hand in hand with the increased GB rate. I’m not concerned.
An amusing statistic:
Felix has allowed 48 hits at home, 8 of them homers.
He’s allowed 84 hits on the road, 9 of them homers.
So, one in six hits he’s allowed at home has been a homer. Even more amusing, of his 17 HRs total, only 3 have been to right-handers.
Yea, lefties have killed him this year. Since lefties hit better at Safeco than a neutral park, it’s not surprising that he’s given up more homers at Safeco than on the road.
Was the gun high last night or has his velocity improved? Some of his pitches in the 8th were clocked at 97-98.
I was suspicious of the gun because it was clocking Mateo as high as 94.
The gun was high.
He’s at 136 1/3 IP now. He would potentially have 10 more starts (maybe more if A Miracle Happens). Seems like he’s going to run into the 200 inning cap before the season is up. You think they really will shut him down by mid-September? Or will they cap his starts at 5 IP the rest of the way? Will the Francisco Liriano news have any effect on their decision?
Dave,
Take it from a former 6th grade seventh place finisher in the Kitsap County Spelling Bee. It’s i-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-E-n-t.
I just couldn’t hold that in any longer!
I would think the pennant race will determine how Felix is used. If they’re out of it they’ll probably push him back a few times and plug in Cruceta or Baek or somebody.
Earlier this year, part of the Felix analysis included a breakdown of his pitch selection and pattern. Is that info still available, and is he throwing fewer fastballs early in the count?
Also, didn’t the M’s higher a sabermatrician, and if they did, how did we get Washburn? Wouldn’t xFIP be a (the!) prominent weapon in the sabermatrician’s arsenal?
err…sabermatrecian?
If the M’s stick with a strict 5 man rotation the rest of the year, skipping no starters when they have an off day (as they have all year), Felix is only scheduled to make 9 more starts.
still can’t get it…sorry…sabermetrician…ehh…
Earlier this year, part of the Felix analysis included a breakdown of his pitch selection and pattern. Is that info still available, and is he throwing fewer fastballs early in the count?
The mlb.tv broadcasts that are streamed through FSN Northwest are not what you guys see on TV - we get a random camera and no graphics, and they often come out of the commercial break late. It sucks. So, for his home starts, I’m not able to see radar readings, so I’ve had to shelve the Charting Felix project for his home starts. I’ve still got data for his road starts, and plan on doing another post on the data at the end of the year.
I’m also working on a way to get scouting data through another means, so we’ll see if that goes anywhere.
Also, didn’t the M’s higher a sabermatrician, and if they did, how did we get Washburn? Wouldn’t xFIP be a (the!) prominent weapon in the sabermatrician’s arsenal?
Mat Olkin is essentially a consultant. He lives in New Jersey, is not part of the decision making team, and is essentially available for Bavasi to pick his brain if he wants. But if all he has is an email from Olkin saying “not a good idea”, and his entire scouting staff is sitting in his office telling him that Washburn has the kind of moxy they need, the email from Olkin is going to get crumpled up pretty quickly.
JAS - I think the bigger mistake was to “higher” (sic) a sabermetrician…
hah…getting my first cup of coffee right now. damnit.
Last night was the first chance I’ve had for quite a while to watch a whole Felix start. I think a big part of the improvement in his HR/FB ratio IS under his control, because of two improvements in his pitching: 1) he’s regained some wicked movement on his fastball and 2) he’s pitching consistently at the knees. Earlier in the year his mistakes were fat and belt-high, and hitters were teeing off. Now, not so much.
Oh, and I wish Joh would learn to turn the glove over a little better. It’s really nerve-wracking to watch him slap down so many of the King’s best pitches.
To put a number on what Dave said before, the top GB pitchers tend to have HR/FB rates of about 13-13.5%, while everyone else tends to be around 11.5-12%. At least over 2005 & 2006.
Also, sinkerballers tend to have significantly lower strikeout rates. A survey of top sinkerballers in history shows below average strikeout rates (ERA+ of 113 and a K/9+ of just 95) whereas equally successful nonsinkerballers (also an ERA+ of 113) had a K/9+ of 111.
If you care to read about it, the study is here.
USS Mariner is better than the newspaper for my early morning read (I work late, so 10 is early for me). I actually have an interest in the subject.
Getting back to the sabermetrician issue (if there is an issue):
Are Epstein and DePodesta the only two GM’s with overt sabermetric tendencies? I like the job Epstein has done, and the Dodgers are reaping benefits at least in part from DePodesta’s efforts…
We would all like to see objective GMing in Seattle, but can we realistically expect it?
Last night was the first chance I’ve had for quite a while to watch a whole Felix start. I think a big part of the improvement in his HR/FB ratio IS under his control, because of two improvements in his pitching: 1) he’s regained some wicked movement on his fastball and 2) he’s pitching consistently at the knees. Earlier in the year his mistakes were fat and belt-high, and hitters were teeing off. Now, not so much.
Does he actually have the “command the fastball at the knees” skill, though, or does it just come and go? Right now, I think its the latter. Last night, he kept the fastball down, but I’m not so sure thats a repeatable skill for him right now.
Oh, and I wish Joh would learn to turn the glove over a little better. It’s really nerve-wracking to watch him slap down so many of the King’s best pitches.
No kidding. Watching the M’s catchers stab at everything and never drop to their knees is extremely annoying.
Are Epstein and DePodesta the only two GM’s with overt sabermetric tendencies? I like the job Epstein has done, and the Dodgers are reaping benefits at least in part from DePodesta’s efforts…
Definitely not. A list of GM’s who would be considered “Sabermetric GM’s”, even though many of them also have scouting qualifications:
J.P. Ricciardi, Toronto
Brian Cashman, New York
Theo Epstein, Boston
Mark Shapiro, Cleveland
Kevin Towers, San Diego
Josh Byrnes, Arizona
Jon Daniels, Texas
Billy Beane, Oakland
Doug Melvin, Milwaukee
Dan O’Dowd, Colorado
Andrew Friedman, Tampa Bay
That’s almost half of major league baseball GMs. The trend towards guys who understand things like marginal win analysis is not slowing down.
Does he actually have the “command the fastball at the knees” skill, though, or does it just come and go? Right now, I think its the latter. Last night, he kept the fastball down, but I’m not so sure thats a repeatable skill for him right now.
Hm. Then it still looks like his fastball is only his third or fourth best pitch, then….
This relates to pitch selection, but shouldn’t he be using mostly his BEST pitches on any given night, as opposed to trying to constantly pound the fastball?
I knew about Beane of course. It’s the early morning half-brain thing going.
Since Armstrong and Lincoln hired Bavasi, and they aren’t going anywhere, are we stuck with being one of the teams that gets it last? That might be a hard question to answer, but somehow knowing that everyone else gets it, and we don’t, isn’t a feel-good moment.
The only thing that has significantly changed for Felix from April to August is the amount of his flyballs that go over the wall.
In regards to what governs a pitcher’s HR/FB rate:
It sounds as though folks have reached the conclusion that HR/FB is definitely a skill that hitters possess (looking at THT data, the numbers range from 28% (Hafner) to 1.1% (Kendall) and just about everywhere in between), but not something that pitchers control. So, when people have concluded that pitchers don’t have control over HR/FB, have they adjusted for the strength of lineup faced by a pitcher?
That is, isn’t it possible that some of what looks like random month-to-month variation is simply the month-to-month variation in the strength of opposing lineup faced and that it might be possible to adjust for this like we adjust for park factors? Even teams as a whole vary from something like 10% to 15%, so it seems like over the course of 6 starts in a month this could be a reasonably large adjustment.
Regarding the gun: it was clocking 99 a few times. I’m sure he was getting his velocity up there, but I think the guns were off. Also, I remember him saying once (can’t remember when or where) he isn’t necessarily trying to strike people out necessarily, but use the defense, and take the strike out if it happens.
I think Mat is saying (sic) that we need more data.
Seriously, it seems like we have a few more tools and answers available than the (still) average GM. However, from a scientific point of view, more data = better analysis. Things like strength of lineup could be pretty significant.
The pitch charting data would also be a relevant variable, if the “system” provided it in a reliable manner. Sometimes this type of information turns out not to be critical, but we can’t know until we scientifically ask (rather than rhetorically).
I think his lowered strikeout rate is intentional, and goes hand in hand with the increased GB rate. I’m not concerned.
Here are some numbers that support this position. Using AB+BB+HBP as a rough proxy for TBF, here is Felix’s K% in different situations this year:
21.0% — Overall
19.4% — None on
18.1% — Runner on first, no other runners
27.4% — Runnners in scoring position
I don’t have GB% splits, but it clearly looks like Felix focuses more on getting the DP with just a runner on first, but when there are RISP, he goes for the K, or at least gets the K much more often.
Since Armstrong and Lincoln hired Bavasi, and they aren’t going anywhere, are we stuck with being one of the teams that gets it last? That might be a hard question to answer, but somehow knowing that everyone else gets it, and we don’t, isn’t a feel-good moment.
Bavasi’s a pretty different guy than Gillick was, even though they both have scouting backgrounds. I don’t think we can say that Lincoln will never hire a stats oriented guy - it is pretty unlikely that he would hire a guy with little experience (like a Daniels or Byrnes, for instance) at a young age. There’s also the issue that I don’t think Bavasi is going anywhere this offseason, so this whole point is moot for now.
It sounds as though folks have reached the conclusion that HR/FB is definitely a skill that hitters possess (looking at THT data, the numbers range from 28% (Hafner) to 1.1% (Kendall) and just about everywhere in between), but not something that pitchers control. So, when people have concluded that pitchers don’t have control over HR/FB, have they adjusted for the strength of lineup faced by a pitcher?
BP has a pitchers’ quality of batters faced report. They could do something like this rather easily. I remember looking at Felix’s QBF report early in the year and not seeing a big difference. Things like this tend to even out over time, and I’m not sure what the value add from doing the analysis would be.
Was at the game last night and when I went to get food, I noticed the FSN radar gun on TV was consistently 1 MPH higher than the stadium radar gun shown on the scoreboard. Don’t know if the stadium gun was accurate or high but the numbers on TV were juiced.
Looks like King Felix is now 5th in the league in xFIP behind Liriano, Santana, Halladay, and Bonderman.
Dave, looks like his BB% has been all over the place this year. What might we reasonably expect over the next couple of years? Could he be the pitcher he was in May, on average?
Dave, looks like his BB% has been all over the place this year. What might we reasonably expect over the next couple of years? Could he be the pitcher he was in May, on average?
I think we’re going to see Felix transform himself into a better Roy Halladay/Brandon Wood type of pitcher. My guess is something like 7% walks, 20% K, 60% GB rates. The strikeouts might be disappointing to some, but the improved command and groundball dominance should keep his xFIPs in the low 3.00 range, and he’ll be one of the best pitchers in the game as long as he’s healthy.
I suppose we will have to live with that …. sigh
Dave, to help us relate your numbers to the reality we watch, where do you get the GB/FB/LD numbers, and how does your source define an LD?
And it’s not a bad thing that Bavasi has a scouting background. He’s put emphasis on scouting development in the organization, and that’s a huge bonus.
As much as some of the guys who hang out here are “statheads” (and boy, did the Q13 sports guy pound that home), an effective scouting operation is a huge part of a major league organization. Bavasi’s efforts in that direction are going to pay dividends for the M’s.
Would it be nice for the team to get some more sabermetric expertise in the front office to help evaluate major league/free agent talent? Hell, yeah. But the benefits that Bavasi’s bringing to the farm system will be bigger and longer-lived.
Dave, to help us relate your numbers to the reality we watch, where do you get the GB/FB/LD numbers, and how does your source define an LD?
Fangraphs.com, who gets the data from Baseball Info Solutions. It’s pretty closely mirrored to the numbers available on Hardballtimes.com, who also get their numbers from BIS - Fangraphs just publishes game logs, which makes trend analysis like this easy. There are small differences in the way they handle their data, but the source material is the same.
BIS has paid employees who watch every pitch all year long and categorize each hit type as either a bunt, infield fly, groundball, line drive, fly ball, or “fliner”, which is their new term for a line drive fly ball. While there is some element of human subjectivity, they do a remarkably good job, and the correlation between their numbers and the ones recorded by Stats Inc is pretty high.
Things like this tend to even out over time, and I’m not sure what the value add from doing the analysis would be.
I think the point is that while things tend to even out, they don’t actually even out–even by the end of the season. Especially now with the unbalanced schedule, M’s pitchers as a group are going to face AL West foes much more often than teams from other divisions, etc.
But my bigger point is slightly different–if we’re going to make such a strong claim that pitcher’s don’t really have control over their HR/F rate, it seems as though we should at least look into how much of the variation is due to strength of lineup faced. I don’t know how likely it is, but it is certainly possible that after we adjust for these sorts of differences, the pitcher-to-pitcher variation may no longer look random (that is, the randomness could be a sort of mirage presented by the randomness in lineups faced) and we might be able to identify pitchers that are better/worse at HR/FB.
Let me argue in analogy for a second. Everyone accepts that park factors are real, and that we should adjust for them. If we ran a year-to-year correlation of raw batting averages for players we would find that they don’t correlate as well as park-adjusted batting averages for players. Now, imagine a world where we make the park factors really large and the players change teams a little more year-to-year. Well, naturally there is going to be a larger gap in the correlation coeffient for raw batting averages and park-adjusted batting averages.
The large park factors would present the illusion that hitters don’t have much control over their batting average.
It seems like this situation–batters have a lot of control over HR/FB and the strength of lineup faced by a pitcher changes year-to-year–would mimic the situation with large park factors and pitchers changing parks. The raw numbers might not show much correlation, but after making the adjustment, we might start to see a better correlation.
I know you’ve done a lot of work in this area, so I’m not doubting that what you’re saying is true for the most part, but this seems to me like an avenue of exploration that is worth pursuing and might provide us with further insight into the situation.
But my bigger point is slightly different–if we’re going to make such a strong claim that pitcher’s don’t really have control over their HR/F rate, it seems as though we should at least look into how much of the variation is due to strength of lineup faced. I don’t know how likely it is, but it is certainly possible that after we adjust for these sorts of differences, the pitcher-to-pitcher variation may no longer look random (that is, the randomness could be a sort of mirage presented by the randomness in lineups faced) and we might be able to identify pitchers that are better/worse at HR/FB.
Well, there just isn’t that much variation in pitcher’s quality of batters faced. Here’s the Mariners rotation:
Meche: .273/.342/.439
Washburn: .271/.341/.434
Hernandez: .271/.340/.429
Pineiro: .269/.342/.425
Moyer: .269/.339/.428
The span of OPS there is .782 to .766. Not very significant.
There are 46 pitchers in the AL with at least 100 IP this year. Casey Fossum has the hardest opponents faced to date, at .278/.347/.447. Makes sense, as he’s in the AL East and has to face Boston, Toronto, and New York. The easiest opponents so far belongs to Justin Verlander at .265/.336/.420.
The spread from hardest to worst is .038 points of OPS. That’s just not that significant.
I think, in this case, it really does even out.
Looking at a little bit of last year’s data makes me even more suspicious that it would be nice to adjust for strength of lineup. Starting with BP’s QBF report and THT’s HR/F data, let’s look at pitchers with the best HR/F numbers.
We start off with Kenny Rogers, who has both the lowest opponent’s SLG amongst qualifiers and the lowest HR/F rate. Then in 3rd in HR/F we have Mark Buehrle, who had the 4th lowest opponent’s SLG. In 4th is Chris Young, who had the 4th lowest HR/F rate and the 3rd lowest opponent’s SLG. Personally, these are guys that I wouldn’t suspect would be great at eliminating HR, and a lineup adjustment would make them look more average.
In 5th on the list of HR/F last year is an interesting name–John Lackey–who you’ve said in the past might be one of two pitchers (the other being Clemens) who actually might have an effect on HR/F. Well, Lackey comes in 5th on the list of HR/F, but has the 5th hardest opponent’s SLG.
Now, these are just some of the extreme cases, and I personally wouldn’t expect all of the high HR/F to be adjusted down and all of the low HR/F to be adjusted up–in fact I’m suggesting that they might get adjusted all over the place–but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suspect that adjusting for opposition strength might be important when opponents have such a clear effect on the outcome, as evidenced by the wide variety of HR/F rates amongst hitters.
We start off with Kenny Rogers, who has both the lowest opponent’s SLG amongst qualifiers and the lowest HR/F rate. Then in 3rd in HR/F we have Mark Buehrle, who had the 4th lowest opponent’s SLG. In 4th is Chris Young, who had the 4th lowest HR/F rate and the 3rd lowest opponent’s SLG. Personally, these are guys that I wouldn’t suspect would be great at eliminating HR, and a lineup adjustment would make them look more average.
The spread just isn’t that large, though. Rogers opponents SLG’d .402, while Greinke’s SLG’d .433. Over the course of 825 plate appearances, that’s a whopping 25 total bases.
In the most extreme circumstances, you’re looking at the difference explaining a couple of home runs per year. For almost everyone else, the difference is going to be negligible.
This is one case where terms like “easiest” and “hardest” are misleading. The spread in terms of quality of batters faced just isn’t large enough. It’s a giant cluster, essentially.
The spread from hardest to worst is .038 points of OPS. That’s just not that significant.
But if you notice, you’ll see that the main variation isn’t in OBP, but rather in SLG, which would be the relevant stat for HR/F rate. Also, the QBF report includes all hitters faced–not the subset of hitters that hit fly balls, which is the one that would be relevant for HR/F. That group is certainly smaller and would likely have more variation.
I guess I can see a reasonable person taking either stance. I can certainly see where it looks like these differences in strength of opposition are small, but my instincts tell me that adjusting would give us helpful information. Really, I’d like to get my hands on the PBP data and look into it myself, but I don’t have that access right now. I can’t seem to be able to convince you it’s all that important, though, so I guess I’ll stop beating this particular horse.
But if you notice, you’ll see that the main variation isn’t in OBP, but rather in SLG, which would be the relevant stat for HR/F rate. Also, the QBF report includes all hitters faced–not the subset of hitters that hit fly balls, which is the one that would be relevant for HR/F. That group is certainly smaller and would likely have more variation.
I’m not sure eliminating groundball hitters from the data sample would be more accurate. They hit flyballs too.
But yea, I’m not arguing that its useless, and if you want to do it, knock yourself out. I think the work/reward ratio might be too small, though. It seems like a lot of work for not much explanation.
Hey Dave -
Could it be just as easily argued that Felix’s k rate will go up when he is allowed to throw more pitches? His approach currently allows him to get deep into games, but he’s shown the capability of having awesome strikeout numbers in the past. Considering a pitcher’s competitive nature it makes sense that he’ll become a higher strikeout guy, because he can.
Could it be just as easily argued that Felix’s k rate will go up when he is allowed to throw more pitches? His approach currently allows him to get deep into games, but he’s shown the capability of having awesome strikeout numbers in the past. Considering a pitcher’s competitive nature it makes sense that he’ll become a higher strikeout guy, because he can.
You’d have a hard time supporting that with historical data. Strikeout rate goes down for most pitchers as they age, not up. Stuff deteriorates, command improves, and they mature from higher BB/K guys to lower BB/K guys. The great ones can sustain their higher K rates, but almost no one strikes out more batters as they get older.
Perhaps that’s because as pitchers get older, they get smarter — meaning they realize you’re better off making good pitches and going deep into games than trying to strike out every hitter.
I’m more on the side of HR rate being directly translated to mistake pitches. Mistakes gets hit hard whether you are a flyball pitcher or a groundball pitcher.
Early in the year guys were sitting straight fastball, so any centered fastball would get hit a mile. Now Felix’s velocity is returning and he looks to be mixing his pitches up more. The same centered fastball is going to be swung through or grounded weakly if the hitter is gaurding for the offspeed.
A high 97mph fastball is only a mistake pitch if the hitter is sitting DEAD RED. When they can’t cheat its an overwhelming pitch, just like the other three pitches in Felix’s arsenal.
When Felix isn’t predictable (when the hitters are guessing), he is a terror. I imagine that you will see very low HR rates for Felix during his prime years.
When Felix isn’t predictable (when the hitters are guessing), he is a terror. I imagine that you will see very low HR rates for Felix during his prime years.
You’d probably expect this of any pitcher with awesome stuff, then, but historically, it’s just not true.
Really. It’s not. Besides Roger Clemens and maybe John Lackey, you’re not going to be able to find a starting pitcher who has continously held down his HR/FB rates.
Just wondering, almost hate to ask, but have your expectations for Felix’s career diminished a little bit since last year when he was posting high ground ball rates AND high strikeout rates?
Hey (off topic), there’s an interesting game going on with the Rainiers (tied 8-8 in the 9th) going on…
Interesting.
I would guess that part of that has to do with the flukish year-to-year correlation of the HR allowed stat. Some years a pitcher may make more mistake pitches but they don’t get hit out of the yard, some he may make a few less but they get hit more often.
The greats though, will consistently make less mistakes and I’d imagine it would show if you studied a group of years.
In other words, if you look at a pitcher’s 3-5 year prime I’d be willing to bet that you could find a bunch of pitchers that suppressed HR rate at an above-average rate despite being flyball pitchers.
Off the top of my head, Pedro in his prime supressed HRs despite Fenway Park.
In other words, if you look at a pitcher’s 3-5 year prime I’d be willing to bet that you could find a bunch of pitchers that suppressed HR rate at an above-average rate despite being flyball pitchers.
No, really, you can’t. We’ve studied this. We’ve tried. Its. not. true.
Off the top of my head, Pedro in his prime supressed HRs despite Fenway Park.
I’d imagine Fenway was a big part of Pedro suppressing HRs. The Monster turns a lot of homers into doubles.
Just wondering, almost hate to ask, but have your expectations for Felix’s career diminished a little bit since last year when he was posting high ground ball rates AND high strikeout rates?
No. He’s a 20 year old who is already one of the ten best pitchers in the American League.
Last year, we had Peak Felix for 12 starts. We’ll see those kinds of runs again.
Thanks, Dave.
Well, my next question would be.
How are you calculating fly balls? Are infield fly outs, and pop ups counted as flyballs? Or are the flyballs you are calculating only of the outfield type?
If its the latter, then yes flyball rate will have some predictability with HRS. But then again so would infield outs and pop ups similarly correlate with fly outs, since that is essentially saying the same thing. The difference between popping it up as to hitting it to the outfield is small fraction of where you make contact, and the difference between a fly ball and a HR is also a small fraction.
If you are willing to seperate flyballs from infield pop ups, then logically you have to be willing to seperate flyballs from HRs.
Yes, if a pitcher gives up a bunch of outfield outs as opposed to infield outs and pop outs, he’ll have a more difficult time suppressing HRs (since guys are making decent contact with those flyball outs), but it also doesn’t mean that there aren’t pitches that do exactly that (like Clemens, Lackey as you’ve mentioned).
Well, you’d have to agree that Fenway is more homer prone than your average park. Despite this Pedro suppressed HRs during his prime. (Although I have no idea whether Pedro was statistically a flyball pitcher by your definition of flyballs.)
How are you calculating fly balls? Are infield fly outs, and pop ups counted as flyballs? Or are the flyballs you are calculating only of the outfield type?
Infield flies and popups are not included in the HR/FB calculation.
If you are willing to seperate flyballs from infield pop ups, then logically you have to be willing to seperate flyballs from HRs.
No you don’t.
Yes, if a pitcher gives up a bunch of outfield outs as opposed to infield outs and pop outs, he’ll have a more difficult time suppressing HRs (since guys are making decent contact with those flyball outs), but it also doesn’t mean that there aren’t pitches that do exactly that (like Clemens, Lackey as you’ve mentioned).
There’s Clemens. There might be Lackey, who we need more time to watch and see if he can sustain his recent performance. And there’s no one else.
I’m sorry, but 1.5 exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the rule.
Well, you’d have to agree that Fenway is more homer prone than your average park. Despite this Pedro suppressed HRs during his prime. (Although I have no idea whether Pedro was statistically a flyball pitcher by your definition of flyballs.)
If you don’t know what his HR/FB rate was during that time, and we know now that its certainly not below the average (2002-2006 data is available), then why should we assume that his HR/FB rate was lower than average for the periods we don’t have data for?
Of course you do.
If the argument is that the difference between a 250 foot fly ball (an outfield out) and a 400 foot flyball (a HR) is all due to “luck”. Then the difference between a 50 foot infield fly out or foul out and an outfield flyout, would logically also have to be due to “luck”.
In both cases it would just be a fraction of a difference in where you make contact.
#56: I don’t know about when Pedro was there, but the last couple of years, Fenway has been death on home runs.
Dave, is HR/FB truly random, or is it BABIP-like random, in which pitchers have a little control, but luck often drowns it out? Also, do park factors alter HR/FB rates?
If the argument is that the difference between a 250 foot fly ball (an outfield out) and a 400 foot flyball (a HR) is all due to “luck”. Then the difference between a 50 foot infield fly out or foul out and an outfield flyout, would logically also have to be due to “luck”.
If we had ball velocity, arc, and travel distance, I’d gladly do more analysis on the topic. We don’t.
What we do have is statistical proof that starting pitchers have very little control over the result of their outfield fly balls. That is up to the hitter, not the pitcher.
Dave, is HR/FB truly random, or is it BABIP-like random, in which pitchers have a little control, but luck often drowns it out? Also, do park factors alter HR/FB rates?
It’s more BABIP-like random. Like I mentioned earlier, extreme GB pitchers will give up slightly more HR/FB than extreme FB pitchers. But the differences aren’t huge, and most pitchers hover around the norm.
And yes, park factors have an impact. Safeco turns flyballs into outs far more often than most parks, so the M’s pitchers get a HR/FB boost.
Yes, but in seperating infield outs and foul outs from outfield outs the statistical community is also, strangely, admitting that pitchers have SOME control over the outcome of how a fly ball is hit.
So you seperate 50 foot flyball outs from 200 foot flyball outs, but 400 foot flyballs that go out of the park are completely disregarded as a reliable statistic? I just don’t follow the logic there. The diffence in quality of contact between a infield fly out and an outfield fly out is similar to that of the difference between a routine fly out and a HR.
Granted if that is the way your calculating “flyouts”, then yes it will be more difficult to find guys that suppress homeruns because an outfield flyout is decent contact in comparison to a foul out or an infield fly out. The exact opposite could be said as well, that high HR rates correlate to a high percentage of outfield flyouts.
But it is counter productive to completely disregard the “HRs allowed” category as luck, for the same reason that it is counter productive to disregard an infield pop up as luck. There are pitchers that suppress HRs despite high HR rates, you’ve even mentioned a couple outliers youself.
So you seperate 50 foot flyball outs from 200 foot flyball outs, but 400 foot flyballs that go out of the park are completely disregarded as a reliable statistic? I just don’t follow the logic there. The diffence in quality of contact between a infield fly out and an outfield fly out is similar to that of the difference between a routine fly out and a HR.
That’s a theory unsupported by evidence.
But it is counter productive to completely disregard the “HRs allowed” category as luck, for the same reason that it is counter productive to disregard an infield pop up as luck. There are pitchers that suppress HRs despite high HR rates, you’ve even mentioned a couple outliers youself.
Can I suggest you do a little more reading on the subject? Pick up a copy of the 2006 Hardball Times Annual and read through the analysis section.
Being able to statistically follow ball velocity, travel arc, and distance of batted balls would be truly revolutionary. Hopefully someday we get there.
It would be more reliable in predicting the future performances of established major league hitters and pitchers than any statiscian or scout out there.
Being able to statistically follow ball velocity, travel arc, and distance of batted balls would be truly revolutionary. Hopefully someday we get there.
Absolutely. I’ve said before that I think that’s the next great leap in evaluating players.
I’ve read Hardball. This isn’t a question of “evidence”, this is a question of “logic”.
If your willing to seperate infield outs from outfield outs, you also logically have to be willing to seperate outfields outs from ballpark outs (lol).
Like I said before its a useful stat to look at, just because its so difficult to suppress homeruns when your giving up a bunch of flyball outs (which is usually decent contact - when infield flyouts, pop outs, and fouls outs are taken out). Year to year you can identify certain flyball pitchers that have been getting “lucky” or “unlucky” with their HR rate.
But you also can’t take a quantum jump and use that to conclude that flyball pitchers have no control over their homerun rates.
But you also can’t take a quantum jump and use that to conclude that flyball pitchers have no control over their homerun rates.
I’m not making that statement. I already mentioned that extreme GB and FB pitchers will vary slightly from the norm. That was the second comment in this thread.
And your theory that infield flies and outfield flies are the result of microscoping differences in swing not only has no supporting evidence, but it doesn’t ring true to me. Infield popups are swings on an incorrect plane, whereas outfield outs are often balls that are off the of the end of the bat.
In my observation, outfield flies aren’t the result of an incorrect plane on a swing. So I disagree with your entire “logical premise”.
And you still have no evidence to support your position.
Also, if you’ve read the articles in the THT annual, and you still believe what you believe, I suggest you re-read them.
And Homeruns are the difference between guessing the right speed and/or location and hitting the sweet part of the bat, as opposed to guessing right and missing or guessing wrong and adjusting late when you hit a fly out.
Of all outs outfield outs are the “closest” to resulting in a Homerun. But the difference between guessing wrong and missing is just as different from guessing right and hitting. The quality of an atbat between a Homerun and a flyball out isn’t all that from that of an infield out and a flyball out.
After reading you last post though I think we’re agreeing more than disagreeing.
I guess the point where we may differ is that yes outfield flyouts correlate to HR rate. But unlike ERA where peripherals are more predictive of ERA than ERA, I’d bet that a pitcher’s established HR rate is more predictive of his HR rate than his flyball out % is predictive of his HR rate.
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but I want to go back to something Dave said:
Strikeout rate goes down for most pitchers as they age, not up. Stuff deteriorates, command improves, and they mature from higher BB/K guys to lower BB/K guys. The great ones can sustain their higher K rates, but almost no one strikes out more batters as they get older.
For some reason, this worries me. For most pitchers, strikeouts tend to start declining in their mid-20s. I worry that Felix is going to be an extreme GB pitcher like Chien-Ming Wang before his six years are up, and I would feel a little better if he was running at 7-8 K’s per 9 right now rather than 5.
I guess the point where we may differ is that yes outfield flyouts correlate to HR rate. But unlike ERA where peripherals are more predictive of ERA than ERA, I’d bet that a pitcher’s established HR rate is more predictive of his HR rate than his flyball out % is predictive of his HR rate.
I can tell you with certainty that this isn’t true. The data is in the THT annual.
In other words, if you look at a pitcher’s 3-5 year prime I’d be willing to bet that you could find a bunch of pitchers that suppressed HR rate at an above-average rate despite being flyball pitchers.
Dave,
What I read here from taro, in my opinion, actually does have a ring of truth, but not in the same way that I believe he expected it to be taken. It’s more of a fallacious ‘truth,’ so to speak. It’s begging the question.
When most people take a pitcher’s prime years, they would select those with the best results. The best results are most likely to occur when ’semi-random’ or ‘uncontrollable’ stats such as HR/FB end up on the good side. Thus, more often than otherwise average, the selected years will have nice posted HR/FB ratios.
Unfortunately, that kind of begging the question happens a lot when looking at the result and assuming it is the reason.
In that sense it’s also affirmation of the consequent:
If he were in his prime, he would have better HR/FB rates.
He had better HR/FB rates.
Therefore, he must have been in his prime.
In either manner, it’s a subjective sort of reasoning that really has no legitimate explanation. As they’d say in logic; it can be a true statement, but the arguments are not sound.
Could be true, although I’m highly suspicious. Its an interesting enough debate that I think I’ll reread the article tonight or tommorow night and get back to you. I remember disagreeing with the process and identifying some holes in the analysis the first time I read through, but I may have missed something.
On a player by player basis though, I think there is too much “noise” in the flyball statistic (hard hit balls, weakly hit balls, good and bad contact, deep fly balls vs shallow fly balls) to rely on. I’m more prone to look at how many actaul HRs the guy gives up as opposed to theoretical HRs - and then from there its scouting - why or why hasn’t this guy been “unluckly” or “lucky”.
Felix for example was definetly not “unluckly” earlier in the year. He was a bit unlucky from a base hit standpoint, but those HRs were BLASTED. Opposing hitters were sitting dead fastball and LAUNCHING it. Maybe a couple HRs were unlucky, but Felix fully earned his gopheritis in the first half of the season.
Its one of the reasons I HATE the xFIP stat. According to xFIP Felix was an impact starter in the first half, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Many times a pitcher is earning his HR rate good or bad, and you need to scout the pitcher to get a real idea whether its “luck” or not. (In Felix’s case, you came to the same conclusion yourself scouting him earlier in the year…but now its luck? or did I misread you?)
I also remember you guys targetting Weaver early in the year because of his supposed bad luck with flyball %. Honestly, thought you guys were joking till I read the comments… Weaver’s gopheritis is continuing in St. Louis and he will continue to get punished. Weaver isn’t giving up HRs because hes unlucky with his flyball%, hes giving up HRs because now that hitters are used to his awkward delivery, he simply doesn’t have the stuff to get by anytmore. Weaver doesn’t have a single plus pitch, his slider is mush, and theres no zip to his fastball anymore. Without any weapons, hitters are knocking each other over to get to the plate against Weaver.
I also remember one of you guys being interested in Green as a callup despite his medicore K/9 and BB/9, solely because of the interest in his GB%. Sean Green hasn’t really suppressed HRs and has been a marginal Major League reliever overall.
Flyball % is interesting and I keep track of it, but it personally takes a back seat to the HR stat (as well as BB/9 and K/9) for me.
The bottom line is, taro, you’re arguing what the reality ought to be, rather than what it is — you’re trying to trump data with logic — and that just won’t work. When the data disprove a logical argument, however impeccable the logic, the data win.
Oh, and btw, on Jeff Weaver: his HR/FB is 15.9%, not much out of normal. He was unlucky with his HR/FB before, and that has evened out to some degree; he’s still getting blasted, yes, but it’s because he’s giving up a huge number of fly balls. As such, he doesn’t constitute a counterpoint against Dave.
On a player by player basis though, I think there is too much “noise” in the flyball statistic (hard hit balls, weakly hit balls, good and bad contact, deep fly balls vs shallow fly balls) to rely on. I’m more prone to look at how many actaul HRs the guy gives up as opposed to theoretical HRs - and then from there its scouting - why or why hasn’t this guy been “unluckly” or “lucky”.
Look, neither HR/9 or HR/FB are perfect. Both have flaws - I could put out a laundry list of problems with HR/9 and show its poor year to year correlation, but I doubt that would sway you. HR/FB is better than HR/9 - that’s not really a disputable fact. If you want to use HR/9, feel free - you’ll be wrong more often than I’m willing to be, though.
Its one of the reasons I HATE the xFIP stat. According to xFIP Felix was an impact starter in the first half, but that couldn’t be further from the truth. Many times a pitcher is earning his HR rate good or bad, and you need to scout the pitcher to get a real idea whether its “luck” or not. (In Felix’s case, you came to the same conclusion yourself scouting him earlier in the year…but now its luck? or did I misread you?)
According to xFIP, Felix was likely to be an impact starter going forward. xFIP is a predictive stat, not a value stat. There is a massive difference. No one uses xFIP to hand out Cy Young awards - we use it to project the future. If you don’t like xFIP because it doesn’t evaluate past results perfectly, then you’re complaining that your car doesn’t make you breakfast. Use it to do what it was designed to do, and it does great.
I also remember you guys targetting Weaver early in the year because of his supposed bad luck with flyball %. Honestly, thought you guys were joking till I read the comments… Weaver’s gopheritis is continuing in St. Louis and he will continue to get punished. Weaver isn’t giving up HRs because hes unlucky with his flyball%, hes giving up HRs because now that hitters are used to his awkward delivery, he simply doesn’t have the stuff to get by anytmore. Weaver doesn’t have a single plus pitch, his slider is mush, and theres no zip to his fastball anymore. Without any weapons, hitters are knocking each other over to get to the plate against Weaver.
Actually, the argument I made for Weaver was that he wasn’t stranding any runners. His LOB% in Anaheim was just 62.4%, a ridiculously low total that just wasn’t going to continue. Sure enough, his LOB% in St. Louis is 75.9% - it regressed to the mean, just like I said it would.
And I’ve consistently stated that HR/FB is only valid for major league quality pitchers. If you’re right (I don’t think you are) and Jeff Weaver is no longer a major league quality pitcher because his stuff has deteriorated past the point of return, then all bets are off. Of course, there’s pretty much no other indicators that his stuff has fallen off as much as you claim. In fact, his 2006 looks remarkably like his 2003, the last time everyone wrote him off as a major league pitcher, before he proved them wrong in ‘04 and ‘05.
I also remember one of you guys being interested in Green as a callup despite his medicore K/9 and BB/9, solely because of the interest in his GB%. Sean Green hasn’t really suppressed HRs and has been a marginal Major League reliever overall.
Honestly, it’s a little annoying having people try to restate my opinions to me when they don’t remember what they were. A little googling could turn up everything I’ve written about Sean Green. The evaluation was, and still is, that his extreme groundball tendencies will compensate somewhat for the low strikeout rate, and for the major league minimum, he could be an effective enough replacement level 6th reliever. That opinion is still true.
This whole argument reminds me of the people who keep sending me emails asking if I’m finally ready to admit I was wrong about Jose Lopez, despite the fact that pretty much everything I’ve ever written about him has turned out to be true. The archives of the site are easy to search - rather than trying to argue against what you vaguely remember me maybe saying, it’d be great if you could find out what I actually said before you tried to refute it.
Flyball % is interesting and I keep track of it, but it personally takes a back seat to the HR stat (as well as BB/9 and K/9) for me.
That’s a flaw in your analysis, then. HR/9 is less predictive of future home run rate than HR/FB rates (once adjusted for ballpark, anyways). It just is.
Felix has the heavy-moving-sinking fastball that is extremely difficult to hit. And this is the point that I think people are missing, it’s not if Felix can get good location (for example down and away) with this pitch, its whether he can get it across the plate, AT ALL. This is a pitch that just takes off on him and he has zero control of it at times. But I’ve rarely seen a clean hit off of this pitch, pretty much just groundballs, choppers, broken bats, etc.
The four-seam fastball that Felix throws is extremely straight and that is the pitch he used to go to when behind in the count. During the last start it almost seemed like Chaves told him to stop throwing it (basically telling him to actually work on the command of the other fastball he can’t locate). And I think this is a wise move. He may have games where he walks 3-6 hitters but he has to improve sometime. I think he got away with four-seam fastball at 96 on 2-0 counts in the minor leagues and it’s just not working anymore.
“The big thing last night was that the fastball was consistently down in the strikezone.” ” . . . Six flyballs in his last two starts.” “GB 70%” “He’s actually missing less bats as the year goes on.”
This is the difference in Felix, last year, to this Spring, to now: burying the fastball for the GB out. The guy who came up last year had his monster sinker just buried in the bottom of the zone, with movement, at 95+. He gave up ridiculously few HRs because, basically, nobody could lift his pitch. His K rate wasn’t extraordinary because he was getting so many GBs that he didn’t get to 3-2 that much. And even then, a lot of his Ks came off the change-up or curve.
Felix this Spring wasn’t commanding his sinker; it was up, out, in, sometimes at lower velocity, seldom with that vicious, Kevin Brown-like running movement down in the zone. When he came up in the zone with the pitch with the hitters sitting on dead red—and too often they were sitting on it because of bad pitch selection by the Ms to ‘establish the fastball’—ridiculous numbers of the FBs hit off him went over the fence. But that fits the ‘GB pitcher profile’ as you say: pitches up by a sinkerballer are mistakes by definiton, and mistakes tend to end up in the seats, especially mistakes in a zone where the hitter is looking for them.
Now, come July, Felix has finally gotten his arm loose, and his natural motion is giving him that wicked running sink again on the fastball. Yes, better pitch selection is making an impact, and will certainly be important in his development as a pitcher. The return of his ‘unliftable’ sinker is all the difference. I’m looking for Felix to run off another stretch through August like he did a year ago, maybe not quite as dominant, but with a very similar game result.
Felix’s offspeed pitches are, obviously, quite good enough for him to win games with them alone. When he’s more experienced, he’ll do this on days when his command or velocity is off on the sinker; for example, by throwing curve early in the count to get the called strike and keep the hitters off balance as was discussed here early in the year. For now, though, it’s the monster sinker which takes Felix from an outstanding prospect to an other-worldly prospect. His whole package keys off this pitch, and allows him to ‘out-stuff’ the other guys rather than outpitch them, which mentally he’s not quite there with yet.
Let’s see: Brown’s sinker + Pedro’s change-up and curve = what? Helluva package. But what’s missing is the mental part. The nasty, “Mere mortals cannot beat me” part. Brown had it; Pedro has a mountain of it. Randy Johnson for years _didn’t_ have it. All his time in Montreal, and his first years here, RJ lacked confidence on the mound. Then, he had a (what’s the nasty synonym, not antonym, of an epiphany?) change, where he took his always privately nasty attitude with him to the mound—and dominated.
Felix Hernandez is still a 20-year-old kid having the time of his life making more money than he ever dreamed of playing a game. Next year, or the next one, there will be a time when the mental part comes together for Felix; probably after a crisis of some kind, but I don’t know. Now, when things aren’t going well, he falls back on pride; he’s made remarks after some games that add up to that for me. When it comes together, he’ll be looking to _crush_ the other guy before it ever gets to the point of pride. He’ll start out hard. But that part of his game isn’t there yet. That’s OK: I’m enjoying watching the parts of his game that are here, now.
re: #31, I also don’t think Bavasi is going anywhere else this offseason, unfortunately, which is one reason why I keep piping up for him to go. Lincoln is likely to extend him, ’cause Lincoln doesn’t like disruptions, the budget is going to be met, and there will be no major collapse. To me, that’s how Lincoln thinks. Unbalanced skillsets and too few wins: these are distant things to Howard. 40K+ in the stands for the Oakland series most days: these are big things to Howard. If Felix breaks off a hot run while AB keeps hitting and the Ms creep a few games over .500 by 1 Oct, that’s plenty good enough for Lincoln, and Bavasi will mind the store for another year or two.
Well xFIP is fine if your loosely analyzing the future performance of a group of players. Flyball% may indeed be more predictive of homerun for a majority of MLB pitchers (still haven’t been convinced-but its still a subject under study).
The problem with the stat comes when its used dogmatically on a player by player basis.
Felix isn’t preventing homeruns now because xFIP said he was lucky in the the first half. Saying theres potential for more, and noting xFIP as “one” of your arguments is fine. But dismissing homeruns allowed as “unsustainable” fogs the analysis. Had Felix pitched the exact same way with the exact same stuff for the rest of his career he would have continued to have goperitis despite being a groudball pitcher. He hasn’t for reasons stated by you and Bela above. The hard sinking fastball is key to preventing HRs now, pitch selection will be key when he doesn’t have that pitch. But Felix’s improvement isn’t because xFIP predicted it - this is where scouting analysis has to come in play.
And as I said before I’m unconvinced that there aren’t exceptions to the rule like there were when McCracken discovered that pitchers had no control over whether balls in play fell for hits. Now of course they’ve discovered that some pitchers DO indeed have some control over balls in play. I imagine the same process is going to happen with HRs allowed.
Just from a local standpoint, how do you explain Jarrod Washburn? Gives up a ton of flyballs, but has a career league average HR rate despite it. The reason for this is because Jarrod Washburn has a moving fastball that cuts in different directions unpredictably. When he is effective he is throwing his fastball the majority of the time, and HIGH in the zone. Judging from his flyball% and pitching style, he SHOULD be projected for gopheritis EVERY year according to xFIP, but he never does give up a ton of HRS because its relatively hard for hitters to center his fastball. Would you expect 1.3+ HR/9 rates from Washburn for the next three years because xFIP predicts it, or would you just expect the same old league average HR rate hes always had (adjusted slightly for Safeco)?
My bad on Weaver. I’m not trying to prove you wrong (I’m not going to dig through the archives), but I’d still have to same objections if you we’re analyzing Weaver through LOB%.
Was Weaver unlucky? Yes. Take away the luck and is he still a terrible pitcher? Yup.
Its proven unrelated to the discussion, but Weaver is finished as an effective starter until he gains a plus pitch, suddenly develops Maddux command, or starts sipping some funky milkshakes. We’re both on record for that one.
Had Felix pitched the exact same way with the exact same stuff for the rest of his career he would have continued to have goperitis despite being a groudball pitcher.
But the point was that he wasn’t going to continude to do that. That’s the point here. A guy with that good of stuff (which xFIP identifies) isn’t going to continue to throw that many meatballs that get whacked over the fence. It just isn’t going to happen.
He hasn’t for reasons stated by you and Bela above. The hard sinking fastball is key to preventing HRs now, pitch selection will be key when he doesn’t have that pitch. But Felix’s improvement isn’t because xFIP predicted it - this is where scouting analysis has to come in play.
xFIP identified that he had the skills that made it very, very likely that he would improve. You didn’t need scouting analysis for that.
And remember, I’m one of the big proponants of the value of scouting. If you’re trying to paint me into a scouts vs stats debate, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
And as I said before I’m unconvinced that there aren’t exceptions to the rule like there were when McCracken discovered that pitchers had no control over whether balls in play fell for hits. Now of course they’ve discovered that some pitchers DO indeed have some control over balls in play. I imagine the same process is going to happen with HRs allowed.
We’ve already found exceptions. Clemens is the main one. And we’ve noted that extreme FB pitchers tend to give up slightly less HR/FB than extreme GB pitchers, due to the mistake-pitch issue. Why you continue to ignore the fact that we’re conceding those exceptions is beyond me.
Just from a local standpoint, how do you explain Jarrod Washburn?
Park factors. The HR/OF park factor for Edison Field is 90 and its a 95 for Safeco. He’s spent his entire career in parks that depress home runs, and he’s still barely beating the average.
The reason for this is because Jarrod Washburn has a moving fastball that cuts in different directions unpredictably.
Again, unsubstantiated theory. Why do you insist on believing things dogmatically that you have no possible way of knowing whether they’re true or not?
Was Weaver unlucky? Yes. Take away the luck and is he still a terrible pitcher? Yup.
I imagine you called Jeff Weaver terrible in 2003, too, when he posted a 5.99 ERA, correct? Did 2004 and 2005 teach you nothing?
The main issue of our disagreements is that you’re willing to believe things that you cannot factually substantiate, and you’re willing to ignore data that goes counter to those beliefs. That, to me, is mind boggling.
I’m not ignoring the data - I’ve conceeded that in many cases flyball% can be a good indicator of HR rate. Still, the three outcomes ARE BB rate, K rate, and HR rate. Where I disagree with the rest of the saber community is in how xFIP is making us disregard the HR allowed stat. Flyball% is now widely accepted as a better measure of HRs allowed, than actual HRs allowed is. Until we really can record in detail every batted ball thats not a transition I’m willing to follow - because it can lead to foggy analysis on a player by player basis.
xFIP is fine when used as “part” of an argument, but it is far from the perfect formula. It is something that can’t be used alone as evidence for how a pitcher will perform from here on out. In fact I prefer regular old FIP (because it forces you to analyze homeruns allowed through scouting - and make a more educated decision yourself of whether or not it is “luck”).
The chances that a talent like Felix wouldn’t have figured it out are extremely low, yes. The point is that the HR rate that Felix had in the first half was earned, it was not luck. You seem to be conceeding that point. You also seem to be conceeding the fact that there are exceptions to the rule, and that you need analyze both the numbers and the player - and now I’m not even sure what we’re debating about anymore.
As for the smaller debates:
-Even adjusting for park, Washburn’s HR/9 should be higher considering his low BBs, low Ks, and high flyball%. Despite Angel Stadium he should have been experiencing gopheritis according to xFIP. Watching him pitch my reasoning for this is the moving fastball. Unless you see him running 1.3 HR/9 rates in Safeco from here on out as xFIP would predict?
-Have to admit I didn’t follow Weaver much until I saw him pitch this year, but sometimes one or two times is enough. THAT dude is toast unless he gains a weapon or two in his arsenal. He has NO plus pitches and has turned into the Cha Seung Beck/Ryan Franklin mode of here-it-is-hit-it type pitchers. I remember him having a little more zip on his stuff early on, and he had that funky delivery working for him that hitters have now adjusted to. I see very little chance of him bouncing back without a transformation (and in transformation I don’t mean a new release point).
We’ll see what happens but I’ve already written him off as an effective starter.
Still, the three outcomes ARE BB rate, K rate, and HR rate.
HR% has a year-to-year correlation of .28. That’s not good. By comparison, BB% has a correlation of .69, and K% has a correlation of .77. Even pretending like HR rate is anything close to predictive as walks and strikeouts are is foolish.
By the way, the correlation for HR% when FB% is removed is .08, which is about as close to random as you’re going to get. You’re not willing to use FB% because it’s not perfect, but the tool that you are using is even worse.
-Even adjusting for park, Washburn’s HR/9 should be higher considering his low BBs, low Ks, and high flyball%. Despite Angel Stadium he should have been experiencing gopheritis according to xFIP. Watching him pitch my reasoning for this is the moving fastball. Unless you see him running 1.3 HR/9 rates in Safeco from here on out as xFIP would predict?
In 2004, Washburn’s park adjusted HR/FB rate was 11.7%. He gave up 20 home runs, when we’d have expected him to give up 19. Guess he didn’t have his cut fastball working that year, even though all his other ratios were right in line with what we’d have expected.
In 2005, his park adjusted HR/FB was 9.8%. He actually gave up 19 home runs. We’d have expected him to give up 21.
In 2006, his park adjusted HR/FB is 9.4%. He’s giving up 16 home runs. We’d have expected him to give up 18.
So, over the course of three seasons, you’re arguing that HR/FB% is incorrect for Jarrod Washburn because it estimated that he would give up 58 home runs, and he actually gave up 55 home runs. 3 homers over the course of 3 years is enough for you to say “see, it was wrong!”. That’s sad.
Seriously, that’s what you are laying your claim too? We wouldn’t expect Washburn to have “gopheritis”, however you want to define that. Washburn is, just like I said, BARELY beating the league average HR/FB rate when adjusted for parks.
I’m sorry you can’t see that you’re wrong on this issue. The evidence is there if you want to see it. Hopefully you will.
Hmmm, looks like I was wrong on Washburn (only off by three). Regardless, there ARE exceptions which should make staticians question the validity of their approach.
I really think people are messing around too much with correlations and making dangerous presumptions while doing so. We need to think in terms of individual pitching “skills” (if a pitcher’s show a consistent ability over several years it needs to be considered an individual skill) and adjusting for each specific “environment (parks/defense/etc)” in which those skills are displayed. SABRMatt is doing some unbelievable stuff on this right now - hes approaching the problem the way I would if I had his math skills. I think its something you’d be interested in.
In any case I’d bet that HRs are evaluated differently in the next five years or so.