Value of keeping pitch count low (October 30, 2003)
I posted this at fanhome:
================
Just to take 2 pitchers, since I've looked at them in the past: Brad Radke throws 3.5 pitches / batter, and Randy Johnson throws 4.0. We all know how resilient RJ is, but let's just say generally that "crafty" pitchers throw 3.5 pitches and "power" pitchers throw 4.0 pitchers per batter.
How many batters would a crafty and power pitcher have to face to reach 108 pitches?
Crafty: 31
Power: 27
So, the crafty pitcher gets to face 4 extra batters, or essentially saves the manager of 1 inning of bad relief.
1 inning of bad relief is worth about .12 runs per game over what an average starter would have done.
Stretch that over 34 starts, and that's a 4 run differential between a crafty pitcher and a power pitcher.
So, if you want to credit the crafty starter with an extra 4 runs in a season for getting through more batters, that's fine with me.
--posted by TangoTiger at 04:16 PM EDT
Posted 5:14 p.m.,
October 30, 2003
(#1) -
OCF(e-mail)
I don't buy it. It takes the power pitcher more pitches to face the same number of batters as the crafty pitcher, but isn't it possible that the power pitcher will be left in to throw more pitches? That the extra strengh (or better mechanics) that makes him a power pitcher in the first place may mean he can throw 10 or 15 more effective pitches per game than the crafty pitcher?
That would be the test: if you could find samples of pitchers, some of whom are power pitchers and some of whom are (low pitch per batter) finesse pitchers, and if you could either match them in quality or appropriately correct for quality, which group would (1) throw more pitches per game, or (2) face more batters per game?
Sure, there's an advantage to being a Robin Roberts-Ferguson Jenkins style strike thrower, but I don't think that's the point.
Posted 6:09 p.m.,
October 30, 2003
(#2) -
FJM
From 1999 thru 2003, Randy has 1,144 IP in 158 starts, an average of 7.24 IP/GS. That leaves about 5.3 outs for the bullpen per start. In contrast, Brad has 1,002 IP in 154 starts, an average of 6.51 IP/GS. That leaves 7.5 outs for the relievers. Conclusion: the bullpen can expect to get almost 50% more work with Radke on the mound.
Posted 6:30 p.m.,
October 30, 2003
(#3) -
Nick S
I'd look straight at IP to determine how many innings of relief that pitcher saved the team. High IP is both a function of efficiency (Halladay) and durability (Johnson). So I agree that efficiency is an attribute, but only in asmuch as it affects IP. I wouldn't use efficiency as a measurement of value added when you can drop the level of abstraction and go straight to innings, but it certainly may have predictive value.
If we run a matched pair study (say control ERA (or DIPS ERA) and IP, and vary pitches/batter) which (if either) group fares better in future years, the low pitch/bfp (efficient) or high pitch/bfp (durable) player.
Posted 7:11 p.m.,
October 30, 2003
(#4) -
Tangotiger
I agree, I'd jump straight to IP/GS.
Posted 11:42 a.m.,
October 31, 2003
(#5) -
tangotiger
I sent this to one of the Primer readers, and perhaps it will be interesting to readers here as well:
=============
Taking all pitchers from 1993 to 2002, and using my own estimate for BFP, I get for pitchers with at least 300 PA is a season:
"power": n=412, PA/IP=4.37 (using 1.3+ as the boundary for bb+so / IP)
"crafty": n=482, PA/IP=4.37 (using .9- as the boundary for bb+so / IP)
crafty:
4.42 ERA
1.09 HR
2.51 BB
4.77 SO
9.82 H
power:
4.00 ERA
0.94 HR
4.21 BB
8.86 SO
8.11 H
... wanna see something cool? here are the BB+H for
both
crafty: 12.33
power: 12.32
So.... they allow the same number of runners per IP, and get the same number of batters per per IP.
Posted 6:45 p.m.,
October 31, 2003
(#6) -
FJM
First, a word of caution. By this definition, the 2001 version of Tim Wakefield qualified as a power pitcher (1.31). But the 2001 Curt Schilling did not (1.29). That's because Wakefield gave up nearly twice as many walks in 1/3 fewer IP. I suggest you define "power" strictly as K/IP>1 and "crafty" as K/IP<0.6.
Second, can you calculate the BABIP for the 2 groups? (Might as well do it for the middle group as well.)
Posted 8:08 p.m.,
October 31, 2003
(#7) -
David Smyth
I agree. Power pitching has no inherent connection with control.
Posted 11:25 p.m.,
November 1, 2003
(#8) -
Tangotiger
Crafty: .291, Power: .283
When you come up with a defintion of "power" and "crafty", they are just some loose terms to try to convey something. It's obvious that some players will appear when they shouldn't and vice-versa.
However, you want to characterize the pitchers by some street term, you are still left with one group with 4.77 K and 2.51 BB, and another group with 8.86/4.21.
This whole thing started with pitch counts. And, the pitchers with lots of BB and K will throw more pitches than the low BB and K, simply because they'll go deeper in the count.
So, if you want to call them "high maintenance" or "game workers" or whatever, that's fine. But, the point is to try to separate guys with lots of pitches and few pitches per game, without using actual pitch count totals.
Posted 8:44 p.m.,
November 2, 2003
(#9) -
RossCW
So, the crafty pitcher gets to face 4 extra batters, or essentially saves the manager of 1 inning of bad relief.
I'm not sure why it would be an inning of bad relief. In the case of both Johnson and Radke it is likely that they would leave the gaem with a lead and the extra innings would be pitched by the team's top relievers. You can pretend that relievers will pitch the same number of innings with the worst pitcher on the staff having some left-over innings that would have been used if the starters had gone fewer innings. But I don't think it really works that way. The setup guys and closer come in to pitch with a lead unless they are really used up.
Instead there is a combination of using pitchers for longer stretches and with less rest when the role they are in is called on more often than anticipated. The impact may well be felt in reduced performance by those pitchers rather than simply the run difference.
1 inning of bad relief is worth about .12 runs per game over what an average starter would have done.
Is the difference between an average starter and a bad reliever really only 1.08 runs over nine innings? Relief pitchers give up fewer earned runs, but earned runs don't necessarily reflect the contribution of each pitcher. A relief pitcher may come in with runners on first and second with two outs and let both of them score before getting an out. The starter gets charged with the two runs, the reliever gets charged with none. I'm not sure that reflects their contribution to the runs scoring.
Posted 9:37 p.m.,
November 2, 2003
(#10) -
Tangotiger
The 1.08 is simply 4.50 / (4.50 + 1.08) = .80 (more or less). Feel free to debate the merits of this.
Posted 12:12 p.m.,
November 3, 2003
(#11) -
RossCW
Feel free to debate the merits of this.
I don't know where any of those numbers come from - the math looks right. If the 4.50 is supposed to reflect the average starter's ERA, I would point out that both your "crafty" and "power" pitchers do better than that. It wouldn't be surprising that there is not a huge difference between two groups of elite pitchers.
Posted 12:51 p.m.,
November 3, 2003
(#12) -
OCF
First, a word of caution. By this definition, the 2001 version of Tim Wakefield qualified as a power pitcher
Don't act so shocked. To get batters out, a pitcher needs both "stuff" and placement (which includes timing). All pitchers need both, but some pitchers rely a little more heavily on "stuff" and we call them power pitchers. Other pitchers rely a little less on "stuff" and a little more on placement and timing, and we call them finesse pitchers or some other such name. Knuckleball pitchers rely on "stuff", even if that stuff is thrown at 70 mph. Their statistics usually aren't that comfortable a fit on either end of this spectrum, but are often closer to the "power" side of things.
Of course, some knuckleball pitchers have been used as rubber-armed inning-eaters. The number of pitches per batter is not that much of a liability for a pitcher capable of throwing a very large number of pitches.
Posted 1:17 p.m.,
November 3, 2003
(#13) -
FJM
In 2003 the 30 teams had ERA's for their starting staffs ranging from 3.49 (L.A.) to 6.24 (Texas). The median of the distribution is 4.47; the (unweighted) mean is 4.55. So 4.50 certainly seems reasonable.
Defining a marginal reliever is more difficult. I chose to define them as pitchers who had 1) no more than 2 starts and 2) no more than 2 saves and 3)no more than 2 holds. 168 pitchers qualified, which works out to an average of 5.6 per team. They averaged just over 15 IP. Together they accounted for about 6% of all innings, roughly one inning every other day. Seems pretty marginal to me. Anyway, their collective ERA was 5.81.
If you eliminate the guys with any starts or any saves the ERA goes up to 6.23. But the remaining pitchers account for only 3% of all innings pitched or about 2 IP per team per week.