The Most Consistent Pitcher of All Time
Lest this thread turns into another “Dave hates the Mariners!” whinefest, let me get this out of the way – I’m glad we won, I’m glad we’re over .500, and I’m looking forward to today’s game. Go M’s.
Now, Jarrod Washburn’s three true outcome stats for each of the last three years:
2005: 2.6 BB/G, 4.9 K/G, 0.98 HR/G
2006: 2.6 BB/G, 4.9 K/G, 1.19 HR/G
2007: 2.6 BB/G, 4.9 K/G, 1.15 HR/G
His walkrate and strikeout rate this season are exactly the same as they were each of the last two years. That’s consistency of a ridiculous nature. Almost every pitcher has some year to year variation in their peripherals, but not Washburn – he’s cemented himself as the 2.6 BB, 4.9 strikeout, 1.1 HR guy. No regression analysis needed here. Of course, his ERA’s have bounced all over the place – 3.20, 4.67, and now 2.88. Why is that? Let me throw some more numbers at you.
2005: 81.8% LOB%, .289 BABIP
2006: 69.6% LOB%, .290 BABIP
2007: 78.9% LOB%, .208 BABIP
As we’ve discussed ad nasuem, Washburn threw up an unsustainable rate of stranding runners in 2005, leading to a superficially low ERA. He wasn’t getting hitters out any more than usual – he was just getting them out with guys on base. Some people called it clutch pitching – we called it an outlier, based on all kinds of historical evidence that there’s not some kind of clutch pitching gene that Washburn has, allowing him to pitch out of jams like he’s Johan Santana. Not surprisingly, his percentage of runners left on base tumbled last year, despite being the exact same guy he was in 2005, and his ERA went up. It turns out that we didn’t irrationally hate Jarrod Washburn – we just recognized that his success was built on a house of cards, and it was going to tumble.
So, now, I guess we get to have this same conversation all over again. Jarrod Washburn is still the exact same guy he was the last three years – seriously, look at those rate stats – but so far, in 2007, hitters are hitting the ball at his defenders and making outs. I shouldn’t have to tell you guys that a .208 batting average on balls in play is unsustainable. When he starts facing hitters who aren’t getting themselves out at every opportunity, his ERA will rise fairly significantly.
I wish Jarrod Washburn was having some kind of breakthrough season where he established himself as a quality #2 starter. He’s just not – he’s establishing himself as the most consistent pitcher of all time, and a walking example of why using ERA to evaluate pitchers is a bad idea.
So, when you read stuff like this quote:
“The big thing now is that he’s got command of all his pitches and he’s hitting his spots,” Hargrove said. “He’s been doing that in all his starts. He’s 2-2 now, and he could very well be 4-0.”
Remember that Mike Hargrove doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Jarrod Washburn is Jarrod Washburn – the outside influences that have a substantial effect on a pitcher’s ERA don’t change that.
Comments
135 Responses to “The Most Consistent Pitcher of All Time”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
USSM uses and recommends
Re BABIP, one thing hasn’t been constant though – the defense behind him. Couldn’t that explain some (obviously not all) of the better number?
Dave,
Would you agree that he is a quality #3 starter?
Washburn is not the guy I want starting too many playoff games, but I think he is a solid, dependable big league starter.
Seems like just another I really don’t like the Mariners winning and will do my best to slap them post, regardless of the qualifer to start. Give the guy a break, he isn’t losing right now.
Seems like just another I really don’t like the Mariners winning and will do my best to slap them post, regardless of the qualifer to start. Give the guy a break, he isn’t losing right now.
This thread isn’t going to turn into last week’s Washburn thread. If you have a problem with me, send me an email. If you want to talk about Jarrod Washburn, feel free, but this isn’t your forum to complain about us. If you want to talk about how awful we are, go start your own blog and write it there.
Looking at the ball in play data, it’s pretty clear that most of Washburn’s success is because he’s not allowing line drives so far this year. A 9.7 LD% is absurd (last year 17.9, career 16.9), and since line drives are worth lots of runs, not giving up any will reflect well on your ERA. Pity that’s not sustainable at all.
I love BIP data.
Re BABIP, one thing hasn’t been constant though – the defense behind him. Couldn’t that explain some (obviously not all) of the better number?
This Mariner defense isn’t significantly better than last year’s Mariner defense. Even in front of a team of gold glovers, the low end of a repeatable BABIP for a non-knuckleballer is probably .275.
Would you agree that he is a quality #3 starter?
No.
Washburn is not the guy I want starting too many playoff games, but I think he is a solid, dependable big league starter.
He’s a #4 starter on a bad team and a #5 starter on a good one.
You know what, Dave, you could have taken this even further by pointing out that he posted rate stats at his career level while facing weak lineups. Is that cause for concern?
You know what, Dave, you could have taken this even further by pointing out that he posted rate stats at his career level while facing weak lineups. Is that cause for concern?
Nah – he’s pitching exactly like he should be. When you’re facing Pablo Ozuna and Rob Mackowiak, let them hit the ball. His strength is throwing the ball over the plate, and even crappy hitters aren’t going to swing and miss at an 88 MPH fastball down the middle. They are, however, going to ground out weakly to second base. Washburn is letting bad hitters be bad hitters. It’s the way he should be pitching.
He’s doing fine. I have no problem with Jarrod Washburn. However, since we have a lot of new readers (read last night’s game thread, for instance), I felt it was worthwhile to do this kind of analysis so people aren’t surprised when Washburn’s ERA ends the year over 4.00.
I liked how Dave put that in # 8 “I have no problem with Jarron Washburn.” Washburn is the pitcher he’s always been, and he’ll stay that way for a few more years, probably. The problem lies with the decision makers who give him way too much money, and expectations that are beyond his abilities throughout the course of an entire season.
Dave – I wiped the 2006 season out of my memory so effectively that I spaced that he wasn’t a new addition. Thanks.
One person who apparently agrees with you is Ozzie Guillen -check out this quote after the game:
“With all due respect, all the pitchers that pitch against the White Sox right now look like Cy Young,” Guillen said.
Dave,
To follow up on your answer in #6. I don’t see how you could put him as a #4 starter on a bad team. A # 5 starter on a good team seems off as well. Of the 150 starting pitchers in the league he has to be in the top 90 under reasonable analysis. I can understand if your standard is building a world series team and calling him a 5th starter on a world series team. But I feel as though you are rating him on what you feel pitchers should be not what they actually are. I find it impossible that he could be rated as one of the worst 45 starting pitchers in the league.
Dave,
To follow up on your answer in #6. I don’t see how you could put him as a #4 starter on a bad team. A # 5 starter on a good team seems off as well. Of the 150 starting pitchers in the league he has to be in the top 90 under reasonable analysis. I can understand if your standard is building a world series team and calling him a 5th starter on a world series team. But I feel as though you are rating him on what you feel pitchers should be not what they actually are. I find it impossible that he could be rated as one of the worst 45 starting pitchers in the league.
Sure – if we were going to rank the 150 current members the various starting rotations and break them into five tiers, Washburn would almost certainly fall toward the end of the 3rd tier. By that classification, you could call him a #3 starter.
However, due to the differing strategies of teams, I don’t think that’s really the best way to define a pitcher. The Devil Rays are intentionally punting their pitching staff this year, waiting for their prospects to develop, and taking fliers on guys who have some upside if they develop. So they end up with Edwin Jackson, Casey Fossum, and Jae Seo in their rotation.
This is true of a lot of teams. They know they’re not winning this year, and their pitching rotations reflect that knowledge.
In my opinion, when categorizing pitchers as a #1 starter or a #5 starter, the most accurate assessment is to disinclude the replacement level guys who are just filling innings. I prefer to look at the smaller population of pitchers who are established major league pitchers or elite pitching prospects, because that’s the pool that championship clubs draw from.
So, yes, you could probably accurately rewrite my statement that Washburn is a #5 starter on a team trying to win the World Series. The fact that he’d be the Devil Rays #3 starter isn’t really the point, at least in my opinion.
By the way, F-Rod, nice job on putting your disagreement into a cogent, informed comment. If all your disagreements were written like that, I think we’d have a lot more useful conversations.
Washburn’s FIP, K/BB, HR/9, BAA, and BABIP have been almost exactly league average for years now, with a few minor outliers (like BABIP this year). The only stat that significantly distinguishes him from league average is LOB%, as Dave has pointed out.
I guess my point is that he’s the pretty much the definition of a MOR pitcher. I don’t know if its fair to put him as a number five on a good team (maybe on a very, very good team), but certainly he’s no number two.
Just another indicator of how Washburn’s season is shaping up so far: Currently his FIP-ERA is at +1.65. Remeber that glowing 3.20 ERA season he lead the league with a FIP-ERA of +1.18.
Recognizing that FIP-ERA isn’t the catch-all stat, but i think its a good indication that at any time those balls in play could start missing fielders and his shiney 2.88 ERA could go right out the window.
I’m eager to see what happens when he faces the Yankees and doesn’t get those 2 pitch flyout outs to short every other AB, and actually has to work.
So, yes, you could probably accurately rewrite my statement that Washburn is a #5 starter on a team trying to win the World Series. The fact that he’d be the Devil Rays #3 starter isn’t really the point, at least in my opinion.
The most troubing thing about that statement, in my view, is that he’s actually our Number 2! starter!
By the way, F-Rod, nice job on putting your disagreement into a cogent, informed comment. If all your disagreements were written like that, I think we’d have a lot more useful conversations.
Have you been watching one of my favorite movies, Dave?:
Washburn’s FIP, K/BB, HR/9, BAA, and BABIP have been almost exactly league average for years now, with a few minor outliers (like BABIP this year). The only stat that significantly distinguishes him from league average is LOB%, as Dave has pointed out.
League average performance in the best pitcher’s park in the AL is actually below average performance. Safeco helps him out an awful lot.
I’m eager to see what happens when he faces the Yankees and doesn’t get those 2 pitch flyout outs to short every other AB, and actually has to work.
Are you also eager for a colonoscopy? Because I’m not looking forward to that at all.
I agree with the consistency thing but I think he’s better than your typical #5 starter. There aren’t many #5 starters out there who can be counted on to pitch over 150 IP and have a lifetime 111 ERA+. I’ll agree that his peripherals kinda suck but he has ended up with a pretty good (or lucky) career.
Total IP: 1374.2
Career FIP: 4.70
Career ERA: 4.01
I’d say that over his career he has “outperformed” his peripherals. Maybe that FIP-ERA difference isn’t significant but it seems like it should be to me.
This is just fantastic stuff. Last night, on the post-game radio show, Sandmeyer [sp?] relayed a story about a previous interview he had done with Washburn. The gist of their conversation was that the interviewers (Sandy and Mitch) asked him to defend his performances against his critics (certainly in much nicer terms). Washburn took total blame for his performance last year, and said that he had some trouble adjusting and that he needed to get back to throwing “his game.” The hosts beamed in admiration for a guy who stood up and took responsibility for his poor performance.
However, as we now know–and knew last year–it wasn’t his fault. Though, I can’t imagine what the tone of the discourse would have been if in the interview Washburn said something along the lines of “It’s not my fault; I’m the same guy as I’ve always been; they’re balls are just finding holes.” He would have been telling verifiable truth, but would have been excoriated for “not being a leader” or worse…
I feel many finesse lefties have histories of ERAs lower than their peripherals would imply. Tom Glavine, Mark Buehrle, Jamie Moyer etc.
I agree with the consistency thing but I think he’s better than your typical #5 starter.
Sure. But is he better than the typical #5 starter on teams that are trying to win the world series this year? I don’t think so.
I’d say that over his career he has “outperformed” his peripherals. Maybe that FIP-ERA difference isn’t significant but it seems like it should be to me.
FIP isn’t park adjusted, so the difference in his ERA versus expected ERA isn’t as big as this would imply. He has given up fewer runs than his peripherals would suggest, but he’s not far enough removed from the mean that we can come to the conclusion that it’s a skill he possesses.
I also agree with one of the earlier commenters that if he keeps this up into July, its definitely a sell-high opportunity for Bavasi, unless his contract makes him untradeable.
Washburn’s spent his career as a flyballer in pitcher’s parks with pretty good defenses behind him. That his career ERA is below his FIP shouldn’t really come as any surprise.
Oh right, I forgot about that… But he was average playing in Anaheim as well as in Seattle. Also, I understand that parks can affect ball in play outcomes depending on field size, turf, air quality, et cetera, but BB and K rates?
It would seem that the statistics used to derive FIP and especially xFIP (which I actually don’t have the league average numbers for) somewhat dampen home park effects.
Dave,
Sure. But is he better than the typical #5 starter on teams that are trying to win the world series this year? I don’t think so.
Really? Take a look at the Red Sox and Mets, two teams that are clearly trying to win the WS. I think Washburn’s numbers this year, and over his career are better than their #s 4 and 5, Wakefield/Tavarez and Pelfrey/Perez.
Angel Stadium reduces walks by 5%. Safeco increases walks by 7%, but also increases strikeouts by 10%.
Walks and strikeouts are affected by park. Observe Coors Field pre-last-year. The environment a) has a physical effect on pitches (breaking stuff especially) and b) gets into the pitcher’s head.
Oh right, I forgot about that… But he was average playing in Anaheim as well as in Seattle. Also, I understand that parks can affect ball in play outcomes depending on field size, turf, air quality, et cetera, but BB and K rates?
Anaheim is nearly as friendly to flyball pitchers as Safeco is. Not quite, but its close.
And yes, parks effect walks and strikeouts pretty significantly. Dave Studeman has an awesome article in the 2006 Hardball Times Annual called “They Play in Parks” that details the park factors for each outcome type, and he found significant variation from park to park, even in things like walks and strikeouts. Whether its the breaking balls not working in Colorado’s air, the hitters having poor sightlines in Florida, or Safeco convincing pitchers to put the ball over the plate more often because of the reduced chance of an extra base hit, the parks do indeed effect all aspects of pitching, including walk rates and strikeout rates.
I guess I was just surprised how much less his ERA was than his FIP but yeah I forgot about it not being normalized. I don’t know how you feel about xFIP but he’s also outperformed that by quite a bit too which should be adjusted for the park and our defense the past couple years in the OF has probably been about average although I can’t remember how go AN’s was.
Really? Take a look at the Red Sox and Mets, two teams that are clearly trying to win the WS. I think Washburn’s numbers this year, and over his career are better than their #s 4 and 5, Wakefield/Tavarez and Pelfrey/Perez.
Tavarez and Pelfrey are both in the rotation because they are replacing injured pitchers who were ahead of them on the depth chart.
I guess I was just surprised how much less his ERA was than his FIP but yeah I forgot about it not being normalized. I don’t know how you feel about xFIP but he’s also outperformed that by quite a bit too which should be adjusted for the park and our defense the past couple years in the OF has probably been about average although I can’t remember how go AN’s was.
xFIP only adjusts HR/Fly rate for park. It’s closer to reality, but still not all the way there.
Hey great site as always. Just curious though, why do you always slam people that disagree with you? I can’t even remember how many times I have read “you can always go read somewhere else” or “you don’t know what you’re talking about”. Maybe we can tone down the sensitivy or defensive meter a notch (for everybody that visits or writes)? Just a thought. Love the analysis as always.
Tavarez and Pelfrey are both in the rotation because they are replacing injured pitchers who were ahead of them on the depth chart.
OK, but aren’t his numbers better than Wakefield and Perez? How does he compare to the two guys who are hurt who I can’t name?
It’s worth noting that xFIP also applies the same adjustment to everyone, even though groundball pitchers tend to have worse HR/FB ratios than their flyball comrades.
I agree with the notion that Washburn looks better than he actually is. I do, however, appreciate the fact that he has been able to do exactly what he is supposed to do against the weaker line ups. I’ve seen far too many below-average line ups treat our pitching like BP over the last few years. I can’t help but think what this teams record would have been with a healthy Felix and an non-existant Weaver.
RE: #15
Is there a website that ranks pitchers by FIP-ERA?
OK, but aren’t his numbers better than Wakefield and Perez? How does he compare to the two guys who are hurt who I can’t name?
I’m pretty sure he’s not Pedro Martinez, but I’m going out on a limb there. He’s probably a little bit better than Jon Lester at present, but Lester’s got significantly more upside, could easily be the better pitcher by the end of the year, and of course, he costs $360K.
He’s inferior to Wakefield in everything but health. I’d take Wakefield over Washburn every day of the week, though. I think he’s clearly better.
Oliver Perez is a tougher case – it depends on whether you want consistent mediocrity or a guy who has a chance to be a difference maker. In 2004, Perez was one of the very best pitchers on the planet, then sucked eggs the last two years as his velocity disappeared and his bad command reared its ugly head. So far this year, he looks like he’s somewhat back to ‘04 form, and he’s pitching like an all-star.
I’d rather have Perez’s upside (and he’s clearly outpitching Washburn in ‘07) than Washburn’s consistency, but I can see some teams preferring a guy who just takes the hill every five days. If Perez’s arm holds up, though, this won’t be a question in a few months.
Yeah, there is.
Is there a website that ranks pitchers by FIP-ERA?
Between The Hardball Times and Fangraphs, you’ll find yourself in esoteric pitching stat heaven.
dartjeff,
Here you go.
RE: #33
But you can think of other circumstances why Wakefield and Perez are on their respective teams. Wakefield is both a team veteran and a knuckleballer which might make a difference in how we should view his stats. Perez is a guy who the Mets think they can turn around and has “great stuff” (although god knows if he’ll ever live up to that perception).
Just a point of information..J-Wash does have a world series ring and was the second starter on the team. Also J-Weaver has a world series ring and was the 3/4 starter on that team. Really a guy like Washburn can flux between a 2-5 on any given day and he can certainly be a major part of a winning team…He is no ace but he is not awfull and to win a world series luck is a big factor.
I’m always too slow… damn this work connection.
Thanks for the reference, I’ll check it out. This is exactly the reason I wish there were rate stats out there with home-away splits.
Actually, there probably are, I just don’t know where to look. At any rate, I just did some quick calculations on his career stats and he seems to do just a bit better away than at home despite playing in, as you say, pitcher friendly environments his entire career.
No formatting skillz here, so everything is home – away
HR/9 – 1.3; 1.07
K/BB – 2.04; 1.93
oOPS – .775; .699
F-Rod,
There are a lot of bad pitchers who have one world series rings.
I don’t think anyone is complaining about the results that Washburn is getting. It’s simply not possible for him to keep up this pace against good lineups.
And it’s not the end of the world that he’s a #5 starter on a WS caliber team and a #3 on a bad team. You do have to have someone take those starts. The only problem is his pay scale. If you start looking at the salaries of pitchers who would provide the equivalent peripheral stats, then you are going to see he’s overpaid. That’s where most of the venom towards him comes from.
heck, Jamie Burke has a World Series ring.
I believe ERA+ is park adjusted, so if we just want to ignore Washburn’s peripherals, then it is a fairly good measure of how effective he has been:
2003 96
2004 99
2005 131
2006 93
2007 to date 142
The outliar is pretty clear. All and all, if he does have a skill that allows him to outperform his peripherals, that skill makes him a little bleow average or, with luck, above average. That looks like 3 or 4 on most teams and probably a 4 even on a playoff team.
The Red Sox were already mentioned, but their ideal 4/5 is Wakefield/Lester. With the exception of last year Wakefield has been a little more durable. He’s also had a slightly better ERA+ if you ignore the outlier:
2003 115
2004 100
2005 106
2006 100
If you use the Sox as a measure, then Washburn is probably a 4.5, since he is probably better then Taveras and may be better than Lester this year (though Lester has upside).
Other 4/5s on contenders include:
Yankees (If healthy) Pavano/Karstens/Igawa
Blue Jays Ohka/Zambrano?/McGowan? (Chacin is their #3 and a pretty good comp for a younger Washburn)
Cleveland Byrd/Sowers (Carmona until Lee comes back moves everyone up)
Minnesota R.Ortiz/Sidney Ponson
Detroit Maroth/Durbin (Durbin would sit if the Gambler were healthy)
LAA Escobar/Santana (Saunders and Mosely have filled in for the injured staff members. I’d prefer Saunders to Washburn at any cost, but particularly at their current salaries and ages).
Oakland Blanton/Kennedy/Gaudin
By most standards, I think Washburn couldn’t even crack the rotation in LA and Cleveland. In Boston, he would probably be the 5, behind Wakefield, but ahead of Lester. In New York, he would be the 4. On the Jays, probably a 3, until Rogers Field (is that right?) exposed his fly ball tendencies and then a 4 or 5. In Minnesota, he would be a 4 until they let their kids come up and play. In Detroit, he would be the 4, unless the Gambler were healthy. Oakland’s a tough call. He’s really not any worse than any of Blanton/Kennedy/Gaudin, and would probably be a 4 based more on his veteranosity than his skill, but it would not be terribly arguable.
On the whole, I think Washburn is a 4 or 5 on a contender built around hitting and a 5 or 6 on one of the pitching first teams. Only the most select, pitching first contenders would be likely to not have a spot for him in the rotation.
Oh, Washburn’s away K/9 and BB/9 (5.28 and 2.72, respectively) are right in line with his home rates (5.45 and 2.67). I don’t have league average averages available (meaning the average rate for the league over his career) but this compares favorably to the league average for last year, which Jeff Sullivan has kindly posted at LL.
RE: 38,39,40 – Thanks!
For what its worth, Wakefield has been better this year by ERA+ at 169 based on his 2.59 year to date era.
Jeff Weaver has a World Series ring.
Thank you for not letting this turn into another ” you hate the Mariners don’t you “. For newbies (which, you seem to have picked up quite a few recently because of your now ENORMOUS FAME and reputation as the BEST Mariners blog on the planet!!!) this is a discussion of the facts and analysis of what it means to be a player in this league.
How do you spend over $100 Million on payroll and win the basement of the AL West? You pay #4 starters (Washburn) – #2 starter money. AND, you pay International League #1 pitchers (Weaver) – #3 starter money. This is why the Mariners are struggling so badly and it will take years for them to come out from it.
Dave…does the fact that the Mariners have “sucked” for the past 3 years mean they have to overpay for every player they want via free agency? Is it a reality or an excuse?
Didn’t BP have an article a few years ago where they determined that a few (very few) pitchers do seem to be able to “affect” BABIP? I seem to recall that it wasn’t a specific type of pitcher either. Both Randy Johnson and Jamie Moyer fell into this category. I don’t know if the research held up over time, I stopped subscribing to BP a few years ago when their writing quality took a downturn.
I’m not stating that Washburn is one of those pitchers (clearly he isn’t) but it’s an interesting discussion point.
Washburn is a flyball pitcher who doesn’t strike anyone out – he’s not very good. We’ve been over this. The thing is, mediocre pitchers can have good years due to defense and luck, and maybe a few extra high quality pitches in high leverage situations. It’s improbable, but we hope for it nevertheless.
I can see how some think that Dave is crossing the line from being a realist to being inappreciative, or maybe even fatalistic. When a number of positive outcomes happen in a row and you feel the need to remind people that it won’t last, and the player will soon fail, it just gets depressing – mostly because you’re probably right. You sound like a disinterested observer, which usually isn’t what people expect when coming to a fan site. This isn’t the kind of post that would prolong the good feelings of last night’s victory – and that’s tough for people who love the site and know that this is a season will be one with few highs.
I suppose that this is about two different types of fans colliding. These types of posts actually don’t bother me, but I find it interesting that people are surprised that they draw such a reaction.
First…my funny didn’t come through right. S/B “whine you hate the Mariners don’t you whine”
Second…it S/B “Independent” League #1 pitchers.
Excellent post, Dave. Insightful analysis like this is why I keep coming back to this blog. And I must say, it’s almost eerie how consistently mediocre Washburn has been the last 3 years in his 3 true outcomes stats.
Spanky,
I didn’t have a huge problem with the Weaver signing. Sure it was too much money. But better too much money than too many years. There were guys I would have preferred instead, but it was a gamble worth rolling the dice on. If he hadn’t been awful (or he had got Washburn lucky) he’d appear better than he was and you might even be able to flip him for some sort of prospect at the deadline.
I’m new here, and while a lot of this stuff is way over my head, I had a question about one point. Dave mentions that there is no “gene” that makes a pitcher better in clutch situations. I’m more of a football fan, but I know from decades of watching the sport, I’ve seen some quarterbacks step up under pressure, while others just wilt. For example, Joe Montana or John Elway may have had very similar completion rates from year to year, but would somehow perform better at the end of the game. Others simply lose their accuracy and precision when the stakes are higher.
I am certain you are all right, but why isn’t it possible for a pitcher to try harder and sometimes do better with runners on base or in scoring position? I know when I played baseball as a kid, I would certainly be more focused if there was a guy on third base than I would be with bases empty.
Dave –
OK, so I’m fairly new to the whole BABIP stat. The way I understand it, the theory is that if you exclude home runs, a pitcher actually has only marginal control over where the ball goes — that just about every pitcher will allow about 30% of the balls put in play to become hits, right? So, about the only thing a pitcher can control to a large degree is K/BB ratio, while somewhat controlling FB/LD/GB percentages? Just want to make sure I’m following the reasoning here. Are there other things that you would define as “in the pitcher’s control?”
re: seacard
There is just no statistical evidence that shows that players perform better in the clutch, than they do in non clutch situations. It’s really been looked at every way possible, with multiple definitions of what constitutes a clutch situation. It doesn’t exist.
IMO what it boils down to is that in order to play at the highest level you have to “try your hardest” in every situation. Thus there is no way to “try harder” when there is a runner on 3rd base with 2 out in the 9th inning.
Dave or Jeff,
When Bavasi signed Washburn what was his thought process? Did he think Washburn 2005 era could be repeated? Is it a PR situation in which he missed out on his big targets so by spending money on Washburn it serves as a vote of confidence?
I am certain you are all right, but why isn’t it possible for a pitcher to try harder and sometimes do better with runners on base or in scoring position? I know when I played baseball as a kid, I would certainly be more focused if there was a guy on third base than I would be with bases empty.
It takes an awful lot of focus and determination to get a major league hitter out in a normal situation. These guys, as professional athletes, are already playing as hard as humanly possible. Okay, most of them – there’s a few loafers in the group. But in general, they’re 100% focused all the time, because this is what they do for a living.
seacard,
Professional athletes are trying as hard as they can all the time, or at least the best ones are. If they aren’t giving it their all, they get crushed by someone that is.
Even in football the idea of clutch is over rated. What would have happened if the Montana pass to Dwight Clark had been just a few centimeters higher? Does Montana ever get a chance to acquire a clutch reputation? Until recently Peyton Manning was never clutch. John Elway could never win the big one, until he could.
The difference is that in baseball we have thousands upon thousands of clutch versus non clutch situation to prove our point. In football, you’re lucky to have more than a handful in a career.
re: Nuss
You nailed it. That’s why K/BB and K/IP are some of the best raw numbers to look at when trying to predict future performance.
To put it another way, Elway and Montana were consistently good in the clutch because they were consistently good, period, and so were the teams that surrounded them, and so were their coaches.
Nuss:
Try Dave’s Evaluating Pitcher Talent article. Also linked in the sidebar up on the left.
Dave…I also appreciate you calling the shot yesterday before the game:
You were right on about it. I’ve been looking at the games the M’s have played. They have played three good teams and were swept by the Angels and Twins and were saved in Boston because they had King Felix one night and Divine intervention another night. Beyond that, they’ve played the “no-hit” A’s, the lowly Rangers and Royals, the (A’s twin brothers in black) White Sox and that’s about it. Without the little luck in Cleveland, they could be far worse off than they sit now. It’s definitely fools gold for the casual fan.
I now fear they’ll sink like a rock as they face the Sox, Yankees, Tigers, Yankees, and Angels for 14 of the next 15 days. OUCH!!
62— Does that include jeff weaver?
metz123,
Thanks for the reply. I guess I need to read a little more about baseball to understand this point. In basketball, for example, you can look at a number of stats that show “clutch” performance. Robert Horry, for example, doubles his point output in the playoffs. He also has a significatly higher 3-point shooting percentage in the playoffs, or in the fourth quarter. I’ve seen studies on free-throw shooting as well, where some 90% shooters do significantly worse at the end of a close game, while other 60% shooters do better in those situations. I thought that could translate into baseball as well, but I understand that they are completely different sports. Thanks again.
OK, so I’m fairly new to the whole BABIP stat. The way I understand it, the theory is that if you exclude home runs, a pitcher actually has only marginal control over where the ball goes — that just about every pitcher will allow about 30% of the balls put in play to become hits, right? So, about the only thing a pitcher can control to a large degree is K/BB ratio, while somewhat controlling FB/LD/GB percentages? Just want to make sure I’m following the reasoning here. Are there other things that you would define as “in the pitcher’s control?”
You’re real close. The basic idea isn’t so much that a pitcher doesn’t have control over where the ball goes, but what the result of that ball is going to be. Obviously, there are extreme groundball and flyball pitchers, so we know they have a pretty significant impact on the types of balls in play they allow. So, to some degree, they can control where it goes.
However, what we’re saying is that most of them can’t reliably make it go right at the second baseman any more than they can reliably make it go in the hole. Once their impact of grounder or fly is factored in, whether it becomes a hit or an out is more up to the hitter than the pitcher. The pitcher still has some effect, but its dwarfed by the hitters impact.
Knuckleballers are the exception to the rule – they certainly can make guys “mis-hit” the ball, and thus, they will run lower than expected BABIPs and have it not be a fluke. Some left-handers have shown a slight ability to impact it more than others.
Also, since balls in play are turned into outs at different rates, the expected BABIP won’t be .300 for everyone. Groundballs go for hits more often than flyballs, so a flyball pitcher will generally post lower BABIPs than a groundball pitcher. This is offset by the fact that the groundball pitcher will allow fewer home runs and get more double plays.
And finally, this only applies to major league pitchers. The assumption is that, since the guy is pitching in the majors, he’s been pre-screened as major league quality. The DIPS theory doesn’t apply to some random guy pulled out of the stands, or even a generic Double-A reliever. We shouldn’t be surprised if hitters tee off on them.
coasty,
Jeff Weaver, is no longer a major league starting pitcher. At least he shouldn’t be.
67 – this is the stretch that I’m worried about the most in the whole season, but if we can get through it in a reasonable shape, we then have a really easy late May/ early June.
And hey, if the Rangers and A’s are bad teams and we can keep beating them, we’ll end up with a decent record
If Robert Horry doubles his scoring in the playoffs (assuming he is shooting as well, not committing a lot more turnovers, and not taking opportunities away from better scorers), you could say he’s being clutch, or you could wonder why, if he’s capable of playing that way, he doesn’t play that way all the time.
zzyzx,
isn’t that how the A’s made the playoffs last year? By beating up on us and having a decent record?
I happen to think that clutchness is overrated all over the sports world. Robert Horry is no better a 3 point shooter in the 1st quarter as he is in the 4th quarter; in Game 1 vs Game 7. What he can do is make open 3 point shots. What always happens when he hits those is the defense doubles down on the REAL threat (Kobe, Tim Duncan) and leaves Horry (a sleeper during the game) wide open to make the shot.
I think 82games.com they did an analysis of “clutch” performers in the NBA and Carmelo was the most clutch. Kobe was way down the list. So go figure.
The perception of Washburn as an effective pitcher has its roots in child psychology. As I’ve written before, I coach 14/15 Babe Ruth. Almost universally, these kids are results-driven. Their moods, their mental approach, their concentration, and their subsequent performance all hinges on the results of initial play. It doesn’t matter if my star pitcher threw a perfect changeup in the perfect location at the perfect time – the opposing team’s best hitter raked it for a double – and therefore, my pitcher now believes he sucks. Worse, the rest of the players on the team are completely let down, and they all begin to play badly. The agony builds on itself: my #3 hitter is called out on a questionable diving catch in the outfield, therefore he is having a bad game, and so on and so forth.
The point is that the kids do not understand that good baseball is a process. Bad results can come from great baseball and vice versa, but in the long run, good baseball will carry the day. This is obvious to those that approach baseball with objective analysis. Clearly, M’s management has not progressed beyond youth baseball perspective, and that is inexcusable.
To tie that in, people are good at the end of games because they are good all the time. We just glorify the end of games because of leverage.
Dave,
what are the chances of trading Washburn for something useful?
Couple other comments on the whole “clutch” thing. First off, I’d actually argue that pitchers do bear down and focus harder in those sorts of situations –but so does the hitter. That’s why the whole logical case for “clutch hitters” or whatever effectively fails, because it essentially assumes an effect on only one side of the batter-pitcher matchup, rather than recognizing that there are actually two effects which generally cancel each other out.
Second, regarding other sports. When it comes to basketball, taking shots and (especially!) FTs in clutch situations, certain players (like Horry) may well be able to step up, improve their focus, etc. — but there’s no comparable focused countereffect. The D may be focused on denying Horry the ball, but once he has the ball and a clear shot, there’s nothing further they can do to affect the result. The same goes for free throws. As regards football, it’s important to note that in baseball, minute variations in the pitcher’s grip and motion and the batter’s swing can make a huge difference in the result of the at-bat, which is why “luck” plays such a big role in baseball; there’s nothing comparable to that in football. The closest would be the QB’s throwing mechanics, where small variations can make a considerable difference in the flight path of the ball — but as long as those variations aren’t too great, a good WR can read them, adjust, and still make the catch.
what are the chances of trading Washburn for something useful?
Zilch. If he keeps pitching well, there’s no way the organization trades him – they already lack quality major league starters, and dealing Washburn away in a “sell high” trade would be a P.R. disaster.
If he starts regressing towards his true talent level, then teams will still see him as a $9 million back end starter.
75- You are crazy if you don’t think big-shot Bob is clutch. He scores way more points in the fourth quarter then any other quarter series after series. Part of the reason he is so clutch is that in the playoffs you get an off-day before every game, plus his teams are always highly seeded so the regular season doesn’t interest him as much. But to say clutch doesn’t exist in basketball is just wrong.
seacard,
People are just starting to do in depth statistical analysis of basketball. What you should be looking at is not if Horry scores more in the playoffs, but his scoring average per 48 minutes and his shooting %. Many times in the playoffs the rotation of players shorten and instead of playing 8-10 guys, you only play 7. The best players play more minutes, so their scoring output climbs. This is despite the fact that often their output per 48 minutes is actually less.
Free throws at the end of games bring up another point. Fatigue. If you are tired at the end of the game you % is going to go down. If you factor that in, I bet you account for most of the difference.
F-Rod,
Your argument for Horry being clutch amounts to: He doesn’t try the rest of the time. That to me isn’t clutch, that’s grandstanding. The equivalent of an outfielder running slower than he can and making a diving catch, when he easily could have got under it and made it look routine.
One good thing you can say about Washburn is that he’s an innings eater, and a bullpen saver. You can always count on him for that.
There’s a short video debate over at ESPN (Spotlight -> Fantasy, which can’t be linked to directly as far as I can tell) about the M’s starters behind King Felix. The more sensible of the two debating (that would be the one NOT named Steve Phillips) voices exactly the same concerns about Jarrod Washburn as is voiced in this USSM entry. And then, the very same things are said about Ramirez and Batista.
One good thing you can say about Washburn is that he’s an innings eater, and a bullpen saver. You can always count on him for that.
Absolutely. There’s value in a guy who is unlikely to get hurt, throws strikes, and is perfectly suited for the park that he plays in. If he was making $5 million on a one year deal and was slotted in as the team’s fourth or fifth starter, we’d love him.
And we’d still be pointing out that his .208 BABIP is unsustainable.
Perception is relative, obviously. Washburn is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than Weaver, for essentially the same money. Could you imagine the effect on the front office perspective???
F-Rod. “But to say clutch doesn’t exist in basketball is just wrong.”
There are statistical tools for understanding whether or not this would be true. Statistics have a nasty habit of showing that a lot of the things we instinctively KNOW to be true are utter hogwash. For instance the instinctive belief in baseball that all good pitchers can consistently surpress BABIP – a few can, most can’t. (From memory, Mariano Rivera was the most extreme example from a few years back and Jamie Moyer was one of the best starters).
If Robert Horry is truly “clutch” we would have to look and see if his FG% and 3Pt% is significantly different in “clutch” situations.
I don’t know much about basketball, and I don’t know if anyone has done such an analysis on Robert Horry, but I’d be surprised if there was a huge difference in those numbers.
Just an aside about Washburn:
I watched a piece on ESPN.com yesterday where Steve Phillips (the guy used to run the Mets, for crying out loud) called Washburn a groundball pitcher.
In 2004, Washburn’s GB%: 38.5
In 2005: 39.3
In 2006: 39.9
League average GB% is about 42. Yes, Washburn is throwing GBs at a 49% clip (OUTLIER!) this year, but the point remains that many in the game still miss the point on a pitcher’s peripherals. Results don’t always tell the story, and can be of little predictive value.
regarding the Washburn is clutch debate…
I have read some analysis (sorry no references) that showed fairly convincingly that the idea that some players simply perform better in high pressure situations is simply not supported by the stats. Even if a player does extremely well in close games for a season, the performance is unlikely to be repeated the next year. It’s almost entirely luck.
As far as Washburn specifically is concerned, I pulled the following splits off of ESPN’s page (all numbers are for the last three years):
3-2 count: 184AB; 53/73 K/BB; .724 oOPS
Bases Juiced: 33AB; 6/1 K/BB; .570 oOPS
Close/Late: 86AB; 7/6 K/BB; .914 oOPS
I have no idea what exactly ‘close and late means’ but he’s clearly a worse pitcher in those situations than normally, although the sample size is quite small. The bases loaded numbers are good for him, but 33 AB is totally meaningless for a pitcher. On a full count he’s not so great. All in all, I’d say it’s clear that he doesn’t get any more K’s in high leverage situations than normally, and in fact seems to perform worse.
So how sustainable is Jeff Weaver’s .537 BABIP?
It’s not, obviously. He’s been both horrible and unlucky.
I subscribe to the Choke theory over the Clutch theory. People get tense or panic in pressurized situations and change how they play/react. On the other hand, those that are considered “Clutch”, are those that aren’t choking and are just playing normal ball.
Max –
as mentioned above, HR/FB%, BABIP, and other rate stats that tend toward the league average in spite of a pitcher’s best or worst efforts do so only if the pitcher is a Major Leaguer. Weaver is not pitching like one right now, and unless he can recover his form he won’t be around much longer. Not as a starter at any rate.
Or was that a rehtorical question, and I am just being my jackass self again?
I was interested to see the Weaver write-up, I think you’ve done a fairly thorough job of documenting that Washburn is who he is but Weaver’s performance fluctuations just seem bizarre.
I personally think Washburn is content to be Washburn through good and bad but Weaver really goes in the tank and stays there when he’s unlucky. I’d be interested in seeing what you think they can/should do with him.
Robert Horry is always the 6th or 7th banana on the team. He does ONE thing really well and that is hit open 3 pointers. If you go here and find Horry, you’ll note that he affects hardly anything clutchwise. The thing is Horry is quite able to hit a 3 pointer when the defense is busy locking down on the REAL threat. It’s not clutch, it’s just his already-existing skill.
Sometimes, statistics are not sufficiently powerful to explain all phenomena.
“Clutch” players are able to achieve a relaxed but focused condition (the “zone”) in high leverage situations. If statistics only measure results and not process, then we don’t know whether a player failed or succeeded within context of the all important “zone”. Therefore, statistics fail to tell us if a player has the capacity for “clutch” performance.
High leverage, to the player, = high stress
I noticed reading Buster Olney’s* 4/30 chat transcript yesterday at ESPN, that he commented to a questioner that Jeff Weaver’s contract with the M’s was for 2 years.
That’s easy enough to check and refute. Spouting “facts” without accurate foreknowledge might explain why the M’s are thought of as dumber, rather than just dumb.
Question for everybody: Am I mistaken in believing that if the Mariners release Weaver during this season, he gets paid by the M’s only if no one else picks up his contract, and he sits at home the rest of the season? And if, say, the Cards bring him back, THEY pay him the contract he signed for 2007?
——————-
Please don’t ask me why I was reading Olney. Momentary brain f… er, curiosity, I guess.
Interesting discussion on Big Shot Bob here. Looks like his playoff shooting percentage isn’t all that great. And even if you think he’s the clutchiest clutch shooter who ever lived, you’ve gotta admit that for a 6′10″ guy, he has an almost preternatural ability to avoid the paint, with its attendant rebounds, blocks, elbows, pushing, etc.
He’s a guy who knows his role and executes it. Except when he doesn’t. But we remember the successes much more than we remember the failures. Saw an article recently about how many times in clutch situations that David Ortiz failed – just in 2006. He was in the midst of a season that many hailed as one of the top clutch years ever, and time and again he failed in the clutch. It’s just that those things aren’t as memorable (especially in baseball when failure is the expected result from an at bat).
Also, it’s a bit funny that John Elway now has this reputation of being clutch – he was known as a choker for 90% of his career. The guy who could always get his team to a superbowl, and would then throw ill-advised pass after ill-advised pass. See this, for example. Or this.
Ugh, how did a well formed discussion of Washburn’s periferal stats and how sustainable his success can be against good compitition turn into a debate about how ‘clutch’ Robert Horry is?!?!?
The M’s owe Weaver 99.9% of his $8 million no matter what. If another team signs him after he’s DFA’d, the M’s would be off the hook for the pro-rated league minimum for the duration of his stay for another team. Or, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $200K.
96 Thanks for wasting 1 minute of my life…I really appreciate looking at stats from 1 year 2005 that did not include the playoffs…Wonderfull link there that proved nothing. Having a hard time finding much detailed playoff stat break down but over the course of his career 15 seasons:
Horry playoff 3 pt% is 38.2%
Reg season is 34.9%
Havent found 4th quarter stats but I am confident they would be higher in the fourth. (I took out the stats from the 2002 season both for playoffs and regular season because he had a hand injury that year and shot very poorly all year long)
Karen,
If someone else picks him up, they pay him the league minimum and the mariners make up the difference.
Dave,
How much of Weaver’s .537 BABIP do you think is luck and how much do you think is due to the fact that Weaver has lost the ability to be a major league pitcher?
So Wash is somewhere betwee his 2.88 ERA “good pitcher” and the terrible one with the 8-14 record last year that got no run support at all. Regardless, you have to acknowledge that he pitches good sometimes(regardless of luck), and if the Bats can score on those games maybe he goes 12-12. At this point, with my low standards, Ill take that from wash-b.
How much of Weaver’s .537 BABIP do you think is luck and how much do you think is due to the fact that Weaver has lost the ability to be a major league pitcher?
I’d probably say his true BABIP, while throwing that horrible two seam fastball over the plate all the time, is probably .350 or .360. It’s bad enough for him to not be an effective major league starter, since he doesn’t miss enough bats to survive that kind of BABIP. But even if the M’s gave him 30 more starts, that .537 mark would regress very heavily.
Dave:
One thing that hasn’t been addressed so far in the talk about Washburn’s year-to-year consistency is what he should be expected to concede to age. Several of his PECOTA comps saw their careers drive off a cliff in their early thirties; is there any real expectation that Washburn can defy that fate and just keep posting the same Three True Outcome rates through the life of his contract?
Also, what interest me about Washburn is that, in his interviews, he seems to have a murky understanding of his strengths and weaknesses. What do you think, overall, about ballplayers and their own awareness of what makes them good or not so good? Are they mere mindless conduits for their tools, for the most part, or are there some in your view who can analyze themselves as well as we do?
I think it’s worth pointing out Jarrod Washburn has had a BABIP consistently lower than average. While his .208 BABIP this year (along with the rest of his peripherals from this year) is unsustainable, but his career BABIP is .270. Part of that is defense, part of that may be park (although his career totals are .288 at home and .255 on the road).
One thing that hasn’t been addressed so far in the talk about Washburn’s year-to-year consistency is what he should be expected to concede to age. Several of his PECOTA comps saw their careers drive off a cliff in their early thirties; is there any real expectation that Washburn can defy that fate and just keep posting the same Three True Outcome rates through the life of his contract?
I think Safeco’s going to hide a lot his decline. It’s really the perfect park for him to pitch in. Even if he loses a bit of his command and starts sitting at 85, righthanders can only do so much in Safeco, and most managers aren’t smart enough to put lefties in the line-up against him when they play in Seattle.
Also, what interest me about Washburn is that, in his interviews, he seems to have a murky understanding of his strengths and weaknesses. What do you think, overall, about ballplayers and their own awareness of what makes them good or not so good? Are they mere mindless conduits for their tools, for the most part, or are there some in your view who can analyze themselves as well as we do?
I think most pitchers inherently understand the DIPS theory. You hear comments all the time about how balls just fell in here or there and how the results don’t necessarily match up with how they felt they pitched.
Of course, then there’s Joe Morgan, who seemingly has no understanding of why he was a hall of fame player. So I’d say some get it, some don’t. I think Washburn does.
97: If some players are better in the clutch, it should be measurable vs their ordinary performance. If statistics can’t measure it, why not?
party4marty:
What does the Mariners’ offense have to do with how good/bad/average Washburn is at pitching?
chrisisasavage,
Of course a great number of washburn’s road starts are in Safeco, the Oakland Coliseum, and Dodger Stadium when he was in Anaheim. And now that he’s a Mariner he gets Oakland, Petco, and Angel Stadium. His road parks are pretty friendly as well.
david h,
They only affect his winning %.
I think it’s worth pointing out Jarrod Washburn has had a BABIP consistently lower than average. While his .208 BABIP this year (along with the rest of his peripherals from this year) is unsustainable, but his career BABIP is .270. Part of that is defense, part of that may be park (although his career totals are .288 at home and .255 on the road).
I wouldn’t say he’s had a consistently lower than average BABIP. He’s had a couple of seasons where he was the best in the league at preventing balls in play, and they bring his career average way down. He had a .203 BABIP in half a season in 2000, and then a .271 BABIP in 2002, and a .268 in 2003.
However, those Angels teams were some of the best defensive teams in recent memory. MGL had the ‘02 Angels team that won the World Series as being over 100 runs above average with the glove that year.
Washburn’s run BABIPs of .269, .290, .203, .290, .271, .268, .293, .289, .290, and .208 in his career. He’s never been below average, but that’s not consistently above average either. That’s a lot of average and a few unbeliveable years.
HI
does anyone know if there is anyone doing in-depth statistical analyis of soccer? As a baseball fan who lives in the part of south america where almost no baseball games are played, let alone televised, i am being forced to concentrate on a sport i know almost nothing about. help?
Dave –
OK, one last clarifying question. If I’m following your reasoning, with all the other peripherals being remarkably consistent to what he’s done in his career, the low BABIP is a signal that what’s going on with Washburn’s other stats — runs allowed, LOB, etc. — is much, much more a function of what bad hitters are doing to get themselves out (by not converting more of their balls in play into hits) than what Washburn is doing with his pitches. Right?
#115 thanks Dave, I was assuming defense player a major role in it.
Looking at his numbers, I see 5 (including this year) better than average, and 5 average years. That includes 2 completely blatant outliers If you pull 2000 and 2007 (blatant outliers), he averages more like 0.283, which is like 0.008 lower than average. His flyball tendancies, and the fact that he has played in friendlier parks has led to a HR/F of 8.8% (unadjusted, since 02 at least, per fangraphs), leading to a few more flyballs that can be caught. Non HR flyballs have had a .167 (and probably lower w/ good OF defense) babip, also per fangraphs. Off the cuff calculations say that would shave (in conjuction w/ his 43.7% FB rate) ~.0015 off his babip during that time. If you apply a .0015 adjustment the 0.283 (.2825) BABIP, it’s more like .285, which is only ~.006 lower than average, which is well within the realm of good defense, and park factors.
OK, one last clarifying question. If I’m following your reasoning, with all the other peripherals being remarkably consistent to what he’s done in his career, the low BABIP is a signal that what’s going on with Washburn’s other stats — runs allowed, LOB, etc. — is much, much more a function of what bad hitters are doing to get themselves out (by not converting more of their balls in play into hits) than what Washburn is doing with his pitches. Right?
Bingo. He’s faced some horrible offenses, and those horrible offenses have been predictably horrible at hitting him.
Thanks, Dave and arbeck for clarifying that (Weaver’s $$$ if he’s DFA’d).
I like my misconception about who pays better….
David H.
Washburn has pitched good(lucky) enough to win 4 of 5 this year. But similar to last year, the offense does not like to score when he pitches. IF he allows 2 runs, and the M’s score 1- they lose. He doesnt deserve to lose those games. But the Ms love to not score when he pitches well(or when he pitches bad I guess)
Dave – Wouldn’t we expect Washburn to have a BABIP that is above average given the number of games played against horrible offenses? (not just now, but for the rest of the year too) If I’m understanding the theory correctly, pitchers don’t impact BABIP and we would, thus, expect two different pitchers to have about the same BABIP. However, this conclusion relies, it seems, on those two different pitchers facing about the same level of competition as hitters do impact BABIP. Given that many of Washburn’s starts will be against poor offensive teams, what would you expect Washburn’s BABIP to finish at? If he were in the AL East instead?
116 – Great question. I’m not aware of anything in soccer outside of fairly rudimentary pythagorean stuff using goals for and against.
It’s a MUCH harder sport to break into binary outcomes, and the depth/breadth of baseball stats are due largely to the high number of data points (ABs/Games/innings/ks whatever) and the ability to make binary outcomes out of them. You just can’t do that in a sport that’s so free-flowing. I keep thinking that you could do something like what BIS does in baseball and have a huge database of ‘plays’ in each game, from one-on-one challenges to saves (this would look a lot like baseball’s defensive metrics) to crosses. But even so, you’re isolating little bits of information that are nowhere near as important to the game as the pitcher/hitter match-up in baseball. It’d be tough, but you’d have to set your sights somewhat lower.
122- I think we could probably expect Washburn to have a BABIP that’s a bit above average because 1) he’s more of a flyball pitcher and 2) he’s a flyball pitcher in Safeco. I think that may matter more than the quality of opposition, but I’d be interested to see the numbers on that after a few more months.
Take a look at: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/batted-ball-splits.
Here’s the BABIP part:
Type BABIP
FB .167
GB .236
IFFB .003
LD .716
I don’t think that flyball pitchers have signifigantly better babip than high gb pitchers, but probably have a somewhat lower babip. One thing is high flyball pitchers do have more LD than high GB pitchers. It’s not a linear relationship though. Higher GB% means less balls in the air, but from my experience, a higher percentage are LD, and a lower percentage are IF than a low with GB% pitcher. The really high GB guys still have slightly lower LD #’s, than the really low GB, just not proportional to the number of balls in the air.
One way to look at it (or at least a way I’ve looked at it) is too take the THT data, and use those BABIP #’s and add everything together. 11.47% of all FB are HR, so remove that percentage of OF , and .97% of LD are HR, so remove those too. Add the remainder, multiply by the corresponding number from the fangraphs post, add it all together to get an expected BABIP. The correlation to GB% is .35 for >=162 IP (qualified starters) which is signifigant, but not strong. The correlation to actual BABIP is .06, which by itself doesn’t tell you anything except the correlation is so weak, it could be noise. I find that (not adjusting LD or IF #’s) is low gb guys have a lower expected BABIP (but more damage on batted balls because of extra XBH, especially HR). I’ve used GB% as a predictor for LD and IF, numbers, which may not be correct, but when I do, and do the same experiment, I get a range of .285-.296 BABIP (based on 1 SD = .005) for almost all pitchers, which is probably fairly close to most pitchers true talent levels. If I dont adjust LD and IF% to GB%, the range is quite a bit higher.
Correction to #124 that was .286-.296 expected range, and 70% of the popultation would be .289-294, with .294 being a 52% GB guy (HoRam), and .289 being a 38% GB guy (Johan Santana). That’s not the actual true talent, but I think the model should come up close, since it corrects for most luck factors.
I realized Safeco will help Washburn look good though. Possibly a lot.
Surely Washburn’s LOB% is an expression of the success he’s having in terms of his general GB%. The three statistics you use when determining what you would expect someone’s LOB% to be are walk and strikeout rates and the amount of flyballs. If you just look at his BB/G and K/G then it looks like he’s exactly the same pitcher, but if you look at his GB% then the numbers are –
2005 – 39.3%
2006 – 39.9%
2007 – 49.9%
LOB% has always puzzled me as a statistic because it’s treated as an indicator of luck, yet the expected LOB% for a given pitcher is determined by his skill set. This is fine when you’re analysing a performance after it’s already happened, but you can’t predict what a pitcher’s BB/G, K/G and GB% will be before the season’s actually taken place and consequently, it’s impossible to predict what the expected LOB% will be beforehand. It’s entirely possible that Washburn is performing better (his GB% certainly indicates this) and this has raised what we would expect his LOB% to be – which in turn makes his performance less of an outlier.
LOB% is partially skill, based on K, BB, BABIP, flyball tendancies, etc, but like everything else, outliers, that are playing above or below what their statistics would indicate are going to regress, like any other statistic. I don’t know any formula perse to predict LOB%, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to figure out.
Check this out:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know-a-couple-of-weeks-ago/
Read: Better pitchers leave more runners on base.
Talks about using xFIP to predict LOB%.
I’ve heard that, in addition to hating the Mariners, Dave also hates freedom.
True story.
Ok if you use Washburn’s xFIP to predict his LOB% it would be a lot higher this year than last year. The lower a pitcher’s xFIP is, the higher we would predict his LOB% to be. Washburn’s xFIP for the last three years is -
2005 – 5.01
2006 – 5.35
2007 – 4.70
Consequently we would expect (under that reasoning) that Washburn’s LOB% will be closer to the 2005 level than 2006.
aaaaaaand, leading off the Gaspump tonight — how much better Washburn is pitching this year.
I dont think it was meant to imply that xFIP should be used as an accurate predictor of LOB%, but that it they have a somewhat signifigant correlation. That’s intuitive, since xFIP is composed of some of the same peripherals as LOB%. Both LOB% and K% use K and BB, and OF% (HR adjustment in xFIP) correlates strongly w/ hit and XBH allowance which an accurance LOB% model would use.
Dave,
Great write-up as usual. While I won’t dare argue with your reasoning on the three outcomes, and other factors, I have to admit that Jarrod Washburn has been lucky enough to not be the firebreathing horror show I thought he would be when we signed him two years ago to his instant-albatross contract.
May he be so horrible in the future? That is certainly possible. And if he is, then you’ve made your position well known and you can always point to this thread (and others) and say “told you so.”
And I agree that just because you don’t think a Mariners player is the bee’s knees doesn’t make you anti-Mariner. I guess that makes 99% of Phillies and Yankees fans anti-fans.
RE: LOB%
Per THT’s website, the formula is (H+BB+HBP-R)/(H+BB+HBP-(1.4*HR)). It’s the percentage of runners that do not score. Replace R w/ xR, H w/ xH, HR with xHR, and use properly regressed BB+HBP #’s. xR, xH, and xHR can come from whatever formula you want. I’d probably create an “expected line” (H, R, HR) from their batted ball data and run the numbers into a BaseRuns formula, then use the above formula. I’m not sure the value of that though, since the expected BaseRuns data would be more useful in determining a pitchers value. LOB% and BABIP correlate strongly with pitcher performance, but each one measures one aspect of a pitchers performance, there are much better metrics for evaluating pitcher talent.
Agreed however I think the premise of the article here could be called into question a little if you consider that xFIP/FIP is a better predictor of a pitcher’s performance than simply his BB/G + K/G. Surely the fact that Washburn had a lower xFIP/FIP in 2005 and 2007 than he did in 2006 goes some way to explaining his success as opposed to just the luck theory derived from LOB%. I don’t think it’s altogether fair to say that he was exactly the same pitcher in 2005 and 2006 when his FIP/xFIP numbers were lower. Surely at least some of his success was down to improved performance (even if luck does factor into the equation).