Pitch Counts, estimated (August 8, 2003)
Note: this is a ZIP file. Do a "right-click" and "save target as". You might hit bandwidth constraints, so try again later.
This file is useful for sabermetricians who want to try to look at pitch count usage throughout history. I would love it if someone would generate the actual pitch count totals from the recent play-by-play files and match up to this file. I'd also love it if someone did an analysis on pitch count usage throughout history.
For every pitcher since 1889, I list:
........ pitcherid, year, stint, NPx, NPbasic
One is the Extended Pitch Count Estimator (xPCE), and the other is the basic pitch count estimator. The readme file with the zip file has a little more detail.
And, since someone will ask, here are my (current) estimates for most pitches thrown, since 1889:
Cy Young 101,698
Nolan Ryan 89,782
Walter Johnson 84,932
Phil Neikro 82,919
Steve Carlton 81,924
Gaylord Perry 79,997
Don Sutton 78,523
Warren Spahn 76,833
Bert Blyleven 75,625
After this year, Clemens should check in at around #16.
--posted by TangoTiger at 04:33 PM EDT
Posted 4:10 p.m.,
August 11, 2003
(#1) -
tangotiger
Based on the above estimate file, here are how many pitches were thrown, by decade, per game per team.
decadeStart pitchesPerGame
1890 134
1900 129
1910 133
1920 135
1930 137
1940 137
1950 139
1960 139
1970 139
1980 140
1990 143
2000 144
As you can see, we are increasing the counts by about 1 pitch per decade. So, I don't think we can say that it's harder for a pitcher to get a complete game these days because more pitches are thrown. I think it simply comes down to that pitchers today are on much tighter pitch ranges on a per start basis, even though, on a per-season basis, today's pitchers pitched as much as any non-70s pitcher.
Posted 2:10 p.m.,
August 13, 2003
(#2) -
Michael Humphreys
Tango,
Another nascent piece of conventional wisdom throttled in its crib!
I've been reading too much Bill James. (To be fair, James is the first to admit when his metaphors are grotesque and grotesquely over-extended. And they're usually fun to read--a true guilty pleasure.)
Speaking of James, he writes in the TNBJHBA that those 1970s pitchers who pitched so many innings seemed to have long careers anyway.
My two cents, for what it's worth, is that there seems to be very little evidence that high pitch counts or high numbers of innings pitched hurt pitchers who are neither young (under 25) nor old (over 31 or 32). This would imply that pitchers in their prime who are at least not bad should be allowed to pitch more, so that poor pitchers aren't given too many opportunities to screw up.
As you know, I've been doing a lot of historical fielding analysis, and have had occasion to look at a lot of baseball-prospectus "team" pages between 1974 and 2001. It's shocking to see how the number of pitchers per team has risen over that time period. It cannot be a good strategy to dip that low into the pitching talent pool. The fact that teams *have* been doing so may explain the phenomenon--especially apparent in the 1990s--of the high number of pitchers who have been *historically* dominant on a "rate" basis compared to "league average" pitching. Think Pedro, The Big Unit. The diluted pitching talent pool may also partly explain the hitting explosion over the years, though obviously the trends toward smaller parks, much more muscular ballplayers, thin-handled bats, etc., etc., are probably more relevant.
Thanks, as ever, for some truly informative sabermetrics.
Posted 3:16 p.m.,
August 13, 2003
(#3) -
tangotiger
It's fun for me too.
One thing that I didn't show was the number of pitchers, per year, with a pitch count of at least 4000. By far, since 1919, the 1969 to 1975 time period shows the largest number of pitchers at that level. From 1989 to the present, it's by far the lowest.
Number of starts has something to do with it. The increase in the number of pitchers in the bullpen might be another reason.
And I agree, it's not like those workhorses were getting injured like crazy in the 70s.
If it was me, I'd go back to the 1970s style of starter and reliever usage.
Posted 11:55 p.m.,
August 13, 2003
(#4) -
McCoy
Okay not a math whiz at all so if you can explain it in simple terms, but how do you know that pitches were thrown at the same rate then as they are now? Did you in fact switch the numbers around to adjust for the time period or did you feel that it wasn't necessary? I remember that Nate Silver on BP wrote an article about pitch estimators and he believed that they were lower back then.
Is there any evidence either way?
Posted 7:05 a.m.,
August 14, 2003
(#5) -
Tangotiger
The earliest pitch counts I have is for Koufax, and those haven't changed.
However, why SHOULD they change, be it 1911 AL, or 1976 College? Think about it. The rule is 4 balls 3 strikes and 2-strike fouls. If you end up with 75% contacted balls, 15% Ks, and 10% walks, don't you think the ball-strike progression to get to those observed results would be similar regardless of league?
If Koufax, Feller, Walter Johnson, or RJ are all at 60% contacted balls, 30% Ks, 10% walks, again, could the approaches of the batter/pitcher be that different that the ball-strike progression for each pitcher be completely different?
But, like I said, this is mostly theoretical. I'll be getting the Dodgers 1947-1964 data soon, so we'll see how that stacks up.
Posted 10:27 a.m.,
August 14, 2003
(#6) -
tangotiger
Remembering that I did NOT use Koufax as part of my sample to establish my equations, here is how Koufax stacks up, through 1964:
Actual pitches thrown: 26,450
Estimated, xPCE: 26,785
Estimates, basic: 26,300
So, the xPCE is 1.3% too high, and the basic is 0.6% too low.
So, if I say that Steve Carlton averages say 4,300 pitches/season, I'm probably within 100 pitches/season of being accurate.
Of course, getting the pitch count totals for games of yesteryear would be great to validate against.
Posted 3:55 p.m.,
August 14, 2003
(#7) -
tangotiger
By the way, I'm not saying that pitches are thrown at the same rate, whether on a pitches/PA or /IP or /game basis. What I am saying is that the function of pitches/PA is dependent almost entirely on the rate at which balls are put into play. So, if you have an era where most balls were put into play, then the pitches/PA would be lower than otherwise.