November 2008 - Posts

• NL Pitchers ranked by Pitch-Type and Performance

  Posted Nov 24 2008, 02:17 PM by radio silence

  Explanation.
  

  Here are the raw rankings, organized in a couple of ways:

  (1) Pitch-type / fast fastball? I used three main groups....Pitchers with fastballs that topped 91 MPH, pitchers that threw sinkers, and pitchers with fastballs below 91 MPH. Surprisingly, my arbitrary selections netted very equal groups. Of the top 74 pitchers, 27 threw a fastball above 91 MPH, 26 threw a distinguishable sinker, and 21 threw a fastball below 91.

  Here's how I distinguished a "fastball" from a "sinker." Wading through the raw data, there are rather clear divisions in fastball spin. Big 'ol riding, cross-seam fastballs, like the one Ben Sheets throws, usually have rather high vertical movement (around 11" or so), simply because the pitches are spun so hard and thrown so hard that they drop less than a spinless ball thrown at the same velocity. The horizontal movement, similarly, is less pronounced -- maybe around 5" or 4", usually moving "in" against same-handed batters (right / right, left / left).

  Sinking fastballs, on the other hand, have lower vertical ratings, and incredibly pronounced horizontal movement. Now, to make things easy, I am using "sinker" as a catch-all for a "2-seam fastball" and a "sinker." I am aware that many distinguish a 2-seamer (thrown with a straight / cocked wrist) from a sinker (a pitch thrown with a snapped wrist). I am fine with that distinction, and at the end of the day, I still want to showcase pitchers who might throw a lively 2-seam fastball in a different way than pitchers who throw a standard cross-seam / 4-seam fastball.

  Here's a noted difference between a pitcher who probably throws a "lively 2-seamer" and a pitcher who throws a "sinker":

  5. Peavy, SD (51.5 VORP; 173.7 IP, 57 R): 93.13 MPH, -8.97 MPH

              Sinker (93.13) rides up 7.15” and in 8.49” on righties

              Slider (84.16) breaks down 5.3” from sinker and 3.14” away from righties

  10. Lowe, LAD (49.7 VORP; 211 IP, 84 R): 89.98 MPH, -6.39 MPH

              Sinker (89.98) rides up 4.25” and in 9.54” on righties

              Slider (83.59) breaks down 2.14” from sinker and 0.78” away from righties

  As you can see, Peavy's fastball does not drop as much as Lowe's sinker, and Lowe's sinker has more pronounced horizontal movement. But let's look at a standard cross-seamer:

  1. Lincecum, SF (72.5 VORP; 227 IP, 72 R): 95.06 MPH; -10.69 MPH

              Fastball (95.06) rides up 11.04” in 3.3” on righties

              Change (84.37) breaks down 6.32” from fastball and in 3.52” on righties

  You want to tell me that either Lowe or Peavy is throwing the same pitch as Lincecum, who has a classic sign of a cross-seam / 4-seam, riding fastball (11" vertical movement, and less than 4" of horizontal movement).

  Some day I will take this data and further break down divisions and gray areas with fastballs. But for now, barring an extensive questionnaire establishing whether or not both Peavy and/or Lowe snap their wrists on their fastballs (or don't snap their wrists), I'm going with one major division:

  -Sinkers don't "rise" like 4-seamers

  -Sinkers have more horizontal movement.

  Now, some poor guys, like Mike Pelfrey, simply have insanely live arms that produce two fastballs that are both borderline sinkers. Poor guy -- what must it be like to throw a 95 MPH fastball with strong horizontal break? I'm certain hitters lose sleep over the classification. "Hey, Pelfrey, are you snapping your wrist?" (This makes me wish that Satchel Paige and Walter Johnson could have pitched in stadiums with pitch f/x....hey Satchel, what'd you do to that fastball????)

  So, my simple-yet-imperfect rule for sinkers: a fastball that rides vertically below 9" and breaks horizontally ("in") more than 6"....it'll be more clear below:

  Fastball +91 MPH (27): Median VORP: 33.0

  2. Santana, NYM (73.4 VORP; 234.3 IP, 74 R) : 92.81 MPH; -11.59 MPH

              Fastball (92.81) rides 9.62” and in 5.92” on lefties

              Change (81.22) breaks down 1.66” from fastball and in 6.33” on lefties

  1. Lincecum, SF (72.5 VORP; 227 IP, 72 R): 95.06 MPH; -10.69 MPH

              Fastball (95.06) rides 11.04” and in 3.3” on righties

              Change (84.37) breaks down 6.32” from fastball and in 3.52” on righties

  9. Haren, Ari (53.2 VORP; 216 IP, 86 R): 91.59 MPH, -10.88 MPH

              Fastball (91.59) rides 9.75” and in 5.74”on righties

              Curveball (80.71) breaks down 12.26” from fastball and 4.39” away from righties

  7. Sheets, Mil (52.4 VORP; 198.3 IP, 74 R): 93.54 MPH, -12.98 MPH

              Fastball (93.54) rides 10.76” and in 4.17” on righties

              Curveball (80.56) breaks down 13.51” from fastball and 3.15” away from righties

  3. Sabathia, Mil (52.2 VORP; 130.7 IP, 31 R): 94.87 MPH, -13.45 MPH

              Fastball (94.87) rides 8.48” and in 5.67” on lefties

              Slider (81.42) breaks down 8.54” from fastball and 5.6” away from lefties

  8. Billingsley, LAD (51.6 VORP; 200.7 IP, 76 R): 92.72 MPH, -1.94 MPH

              Fastball (92.72) rides 9.05” and in 2.38” on righties

              Sinker (90.78) breaks down 2.60” from fastball and in 7.86” on righties

  14. Nolasco, Fla (44.7 VORP; 212.3 IP, 88 R): 92.45 MPH, -16.2 MPH

              Fastball (92.45) rides 10.37” and in 3.75” on righties

              Curveball (76.25) breaks down 15.90” from fastball and 6.28” away from righties 

  12. Volquez, Cin (44.3 VORP; 196 IP, 82 R): 83.07 MPH, +10.97 MPH

              Change (83.07) rides 1.83” and in 6.98” on righties

              Fastball (94.04) rises 7.59” from change and in 4.47” on righties

  15. Oswalt, Hou (44.1 VORP; 208.7 IP, 89 R): 93.47 MPH, -1.02 MPH

              Fastball (93.47) rides 8.86” and in 3.93” on righties

              Sinker (92.45) breaks down 2.47” from fastball and in 7.48” on righties

  18. Cain, SF (43.2 VORP; 217.7 IP, 95 R): 93.39 MPH, -7.31 MPH

              Fastball (93.39) rides 11.28” and in 4.04” on righties

              Slider (86.08) breaks down 8.69” from fastball and 2.68” away from righties

  20. Pelfrey, NYM (39.6 VORP; 200.7 IP, 86 R): 95.04 MPH, -0.67 MPH

              Fastball (95.04) rides 8.9” and in 7.2” on righties

              Sinker (94.37) breaks down 3.11” from fastball and in 9.95” on righties

  21. Lohse, StL (39.2 VORP; 200 IP, 88 R): 91.31 MPH, -7.3 MPH

              Fastball (91.31) rides 9.45” and in 5.69” on righties

              Slider (84.01) breaks down 9.63” from fastball and 3.66” away from righties

  22. Wellemeyer, StL (37.3 VORP; 191.7 IP, 84 R): 92.9 MPH, -7.85 MPH

              Fastball (92.9) rides 10.36” and in 3.9” on righties

              Slider (85.05) breaks down 7.18” from fastball and 2.42” away from righties

  26. Jurrjens, Atl (33.0 VORP; 188.3 IP, 87 R): 92.49 MPH, -7.95 MPH

              Fastball (92.49) rides 9.24” and in 6.75” on righties

              Change (84.54) breaks down 3.16” from fastball and in 8.76” on righties

  41. Ol. Perez, NYM (21.0 VORP; 194 IP, 100 R): 92.42 MPH, -12.65 MPH

              Fastball (92.42) rides 9.99” and in 6.81” on lefties

              Slider (79.77) breaks down 7.81” from fastball and 5.42” away from lefties

  65. McClung, Mil (19.9 VORP; 105.3 IP, 47 R): 93.74 MPH, -15.98 MPH

              Fastball (93.74) rides 11” and in 3.68” on righties

              Curveball (77.76) breaks down 14.64” from fastball and 4.09” away from righties

  43. Myers, Phi (19.3 VORP; 190 IP, 103 R): 91.06 MPH, -5.53 MPH

              Fastball (91.06) rides 9.95” and in 3.07” on righties

              Slider (85.53) breaks down 7.84” from fastball and 2.38” away from righties

  37. Maine, NYM (18.6 VORP; 140 IP, 70 R): 94.29 MPH, - 8.35 MPH

              Fastball (94.29) rides 10.05” and in 7.84” on righties

              Change (85.94) breaks down 4.88” and in 5.02” on rightiess

  34. Kershaw, LAD (17.4 VORP; 107.7 IP, 51 R): 94.86 MPH, -20.79 MPH

              Fastball (94.86) rides 10.13” and in 2.73” on lefties

              Curveball (74.07) breaks down 17.03” from fastball and 3.56” away from lefties

  44. Parra, Mil (15.0 VORP; 166 IP, 91 R): 92.38 MPH, -16.72 MPH

              Fastball (92.38) rides 9.95” and in 4.52” on lefties

              Curveball (75.66) breaks down 12.74” from fastball and 4.55” away from lefties

  52. Cueto, Cin (11.5 VORP; 174 IP, 101 R): 94.49 MPH, -8.47 MPH

              Fastball (94.49) rides 10.33” and in 5.01” on righties

              Slider (86.02) breaks down 8.53” from fastball and 0.69” away from righties

  51. J. Sanchez, SF (11.1 VORP; 158 IP, 90 R): 91.86 MPH, -6.60 MPH

              Fastball (91.86) rides 9.4” and in 5.67” on lefties

              Change (85.21) breaks down 4.22” from fastball and in 6.79” on lefties

  47. de la Rosa, Col (9.2 VORP; 130 IP, 77 R): 92.81 MPH, -11.89 MPH

              Cutter (92.81) rides 9.03” and in 4.21” on lefties (?)

              Slider (80.92) breaks down 8.52” from cutter and 1.39” away from lefties

  45. Baek, SD (7.7 VORP; 111 IP, 60 R): 91.78 MPH, -5.57 MPH

              Fastball (91.78) rides 9.43” and in 4.17” on righties

              Slider (86.21) breaks down 4.09” from fastball and 1.23” away from righties

  61. Redding, Was (3.1 VORP; 182 IP, 110 R): 91.26 MPH, -8.90 MPH

              Fastball (91.26) rides 9.7” and in 5.86” on righties

              Slider (82.36) breaks down 6.9” from fastball and 2.85” away from righties

  62. Reyes, Atl (-5.5 VORP; 113 IP, 77 R): 91.3 MPH, -9.11 MPH

              Fastball (91.3) rides 10.14” and in 2.93” on lefties

              Change (82.19) breaks down 1.12” from fastball and in 3.79” on lefties

  73. A. Miller, Fla (-12.4 VORP; 107.3 IP, 78 R): 93.04 MPH, -4.21 MPH

              Fastball (93.04) rides 9.12” and in 6.56” on lefties

              Change (88.83) breaks down 1.37” from fastball and in 9.28” on lefties

   

  Sinkers (rides below 9” and breaks in more than 6”) (26): Median VORP: 25.4

  4. Dempster, ChC (57.5 VORP; 206.7 IP, 75 R): 91.81 MPH, -6.86 MPH

              Sinker (91.81) rides 8.26” and in 6.72” on righties

              Slider (84.95) breaks down 8.18” from sinker and 1.23” away from righties

  5. Peavy, SD (51.5 VORP; 173.7 IP, 57 R): 93.13 MPH, -8.97 MPH

              Sinker (93.13) rides 7.15” and in 8.49” on righties

              Slider (84.16) breaks down 5.3” from sinker and 3.14” away from righties

  11. Webb, Ari (50.8 VORP; 226.7 IP, 95 R): 88.61 MPH, -10.48

              Sinker (88.61) rides 1.28” and in 7.22” on righties

              Change (78.13) drops 1.31” from sinker and in 4.83” on righties

  10. Lowe, LAD (49.7 VORP; 211 IP, 84 R): 89.98 MPH, -6.39 MPH

              Sinker (89.98) rides 4.25” and in 9.54” on righties

              Slider (83.59) breaks down 2.14” from sinker and 0.78” away from righties

  19. Moyer, Phi (40.3 VORP; 196.3 IP, 85 R): 82.06 MPH, -6.91 MPH

              Sinker (82.06) rides 6.13” and in 9.01” on lefties

              Change (75.15) rises 1.93” from sinker and in 8.2” on lefties

  13. Hudson, Atl (37.0 VORP; 142 IP, 53 R): 90.72 MPH, -4.83 MPH

              Sinker (90.72) rides 5.08” and in 8.93” on righties

              Slider (85.89) breaks down 1.18” from fastball and in 0.75” on righties

  24. Cook, Col (36.5 VORP; 211.3 IP, 102 R): 91.39 MPH, -7.39 MPH

              Sinker (91.39) rides 5.04” and in 6.89” on righties

              Slider (84) breaks down 2.31” from sinker and 1.13” away from righties

  23. Zambrano, ChC (35.7 VORP; 188.7 IP, 85 R): 91.84 MPH, -1.14 MPH

              Sinker (91.84) rides 4.17” and in 9.57” on righties

              Cutter (90.7) rises 2.96” from sinker and in 2.23” on righties

  28. Jimenez, Col (32.7 VORP; 198.7 IP, 97 R): 95.76 MPH, -13,73 MPH

              Sinker (95.76) rides 7.75” and in 7.27” on righties

              Slider (82.03) breaks down 7.41” from sinker and 2.84” away from righties

  27. Kuroda, LAD (31.2 VORP; 183.3 IP, 85 R): 92.8 MPH, -8.44 MPH

              Sinker (92.8) rides 6.48” and in 8.34” on righties

              Slider (84.36) breaks down 3.55” from sinker and in 0.53” on righties

  32. R. Johnson, Ari (27.2 VORP; 184 IP, 92 R): 91.52 MPH, -7.86 MPH

              Sinker (91.52) rides 7.76” and in 10.21” on lefties

              Slider (83.66) breaks down 6.18” from sinker and in 0.22” on lefties

  33. Bush, Mil (26.5 VORP; 185 IP, 92 R): 88.38 MPH, -18.93 MPH

              Sinker (88.38) rides 7.17” and in 10.17” on righties

              Curveball (69.45) breaks down 11.95” from sinker and 4.97” away from righties

  36. Looper, StL (25.7 VORP; 199 IP, 101 R): 90.59 MPH, -8.69 MPH

              Sinker (90.59) rides 8.3” and in 7.65” on righties

              Change (81.9) breaks down 7.27” and in 6.81” on righties

  35. Lannan, Was (25.1 VORP; 182 IP, 89 R): 88.01 MPH, -7.2 MPH

              Sinker (88.01) rides 6.93” and in 3.87” on lefties

              Slider (80.81) breaks down 5.03” from sinker and 2.35” away from lefties

  39. Marquis, ChC (20.8 VORP; 167 IP, 87 R): 90.89 MPH, -6.59 MPH

              Sinker (90.89) rides 6.48” and in 7.61” on righties

              Slider (84.4) breaks down 3.57” from sinker and 0.87” away from righties

  42. Maddux, SD (15.0 VORP; 153.3 IP, 80 R): 84.23 MPH, -5.98 MPH

              Sinker (84.23) rides 4.34” and in 7.63” on righties

              Change (78.25) breaks down 0.64” from sinker and 1.79” away from righties

  49. Francis, Col (10.6 VORP; 143.7 IP, 84 R): 87.22 MPH, -7.96 MPH

              Sinker (87.22) rides 7.77” and in 7.49” on lefties

              Change (79.26) breaks down 2.12” from sinker and in 4.93” on lefties

  57. Duke, Pit (7.4 VORP; 185 IP, 111 R): 89.56 MPH, -15.59 MPH

              Sinker (89.56) rides 7.01” and in 7.79” on lefties

              Curveball (73.97) breaks down 12.26” from sinker and 4.26” away from lefties

  55. Pineiro, StL (5.7 VORP; 148.7 IP, 89 R): 89.62 MPH, +0.53 MPH

              Sinker (89.62) rides 5.91” and in 5.83” on righties

              Fastball (90.15) rises 3.19” from sinker and in 1.97” on righties

  53. Wolf, SD (4.7 VORP; 119.7 IP, 69 R): 89.06 MPH, -0.13 MPH

              Sinker (1) (89.06) rides 6.27” and in 9.99” on lefties

              Sinker (2) (88.93) rises 2.62” from sinker (1) and in 4.95” on lefties

  56. Eaton. Phi (-1.9 VORP; 107 IP, 71 R):  90.43 MPH, -6.09 MPH

              Sinker (90.43) rides 8.18” and in 7.32” on righties

              Change (84.34) breaks down 2.14” and in 3.38” on righties

  68. Snell, Pit (-1.9 VORP; 164.3 IP, 107 R): 92.92 MPH, -8.49 MPH

              Sinker (92.92) rides 8.4” and in 6.27” on righties

              Slider (84.43) breaks down 6.13” from sinker and 0.38” away from righties

  58. P. Martinez, NYM (-2.0 VORP; 109 IP, 70 R): 90.08 MPH, -0.96 MPH

              Sinker (1) (90.08 MPH) rides 7.25” and in 6.13” on righties

              Sinker (2) (89.12 MPH) breaks down 3.83” from sinker (1) and in 8.59” on righties

  64. Kendrick, Phi (-2.9 VORP; 155.7 IP, 103 R): 90.65 MPH, -7.45 MPH

              Sinker (90.65) rides 6.33” and in 8.41” on righties

              Slider (83.4) breaks down 3.12” from sinker and 1.5” away from righties

  60. Owings, Ari (-5.8 VORP; 104.7 IP, 73 R): 89.35 MPH, -6.61 MPH

              Sinker (89.35) rides 6.93” and in 1.86” on righties

              Slider (82.74) breaks down 4.10” from sinker and 1.93” away from righties

  74. Backe, Hou (-7.9 VORP; 166.7 IP, 114 R): 89.98 MPH, -6.67 MPH

              Sinker (89.98) rides 8.04” and in 6.86” on righties

              Slider (83.31) breaks down 6.30” from sinker and 1.53” away from righties

   

  Fastball -91 MPH (21): Median VORP: 15.7

  6. Hamels, Phi (56.3 VORP; 227.3 IP, 89 R): 90.92 MPH, -10.34 MPH

              Fastball (90.92) rides 12.09” and in 2.68” on lefties

              Change (90.58) breaks down 4.06” from fastball and in 7.77” on lefties

  16. Maholm, Pit (42.7 VORP; 206.3 IP, 89 R): 90.64 MPH, -13.73 MPH

              Fastball (90.64) rides 8.92” and in 4.72” on lefties

              Curveball (76.91) breaks down 12.61” from fastball and 3.25” away from lefties

  25. Lilly, ChC (35.3 VORP; 204.7 IP, 96 R): 88.13 MPH, -5.23 MPH

              Fastball (88.13) rides 11.43” and in 5.98” on lefties

              Slider (82.9) breaks down 7.7” from fastball and 0.31” away from lefties

  17. Wainwright, StL (33.2 VORP; 132 IP, 51 R): 90.76 MPH, -6.61 MPH

              Fastball (90.76) rides 10.3” and in 5.82” on righties

              Slider (84.15) breaks down 6.22” from fastball and 3.92” away from righties

  29. Campillo, Atl (25.8 VORP; 158.7 IP, 74 R): 81.43 MPH, +5.01 MPH

              Slider (81.43) rides 4.85” and 0.79” away from righties

              Fastball (86.44) rises 6.38” from slider and in 4.22” on righties

  30. W. Rodroguez, Hou (22.4 VORP; 137.3 IP, 65 R): 75.76 MPH, +14.21 MPH

              Curveball (75.76) breaks down 7.41” and 5.65” away from lefties

              Fastball (89.97) rises 16.9” from curve and in 7.11” on lefties

  38. D. Davis, Ari (19.3 VORP; 146 IP, 76 R): 82.38 MPH, +2.34 MPH

              Cutter (82.38) rides 5.53” and in 0.78” on righties

              Fastball (84.72) rises 5.24” from cutter and in 3.37” on lefties

  46. Olsen, Fla (18.0 VORP; 201.7 IP, 106 R): 88.14 MPH, -6.89 MPH

              Fastball (88.14) rides 11.78” and in 6.27” on lefties

              Change (81.23) breaks down 3.49” from fastball and in 4.78” on lefties

  31. Young, SD (17.6 VORP; 102.3 IP, 46 R): 87.51 MPH, -9.09 MPH

              Fastball (87.51) rides 12.62” and in 1.04” on righties

              Slider (78.42) drops 8.38” from fastball and 0.48” away from righties

  40. Moehler, Hou (16.8 VORP; 150 IP, 79 R): 89.12 MPH, +0.29 MPH

              Fastball (89.12) rides 9.97” and in 3.99” on righties

              Sinker (89.41) breaks down 3.39” from fastball and in 7.63” on righties

  66. Villanueva, Mil (15.7 VORP; 108.3 IP, 53 R): 88.01 MPH, -5.57 MPH

              Fastball (88.01) rides 11.13” and in 5.27” on righties

              “Slider” (82.54) breaks down 6.38” from fastball and in 0.61” on righties

  48. Harang, Cin (15.5 VORP; 184.3 IP, 104 R): 90.31 MPH, -9.04 MPH

              Fastball (90.31) rides 10.57” and in 5.91” on righties

              Slider (81.27) drops 9.22” from fastball and 1.24” away from righties

  67. Sampson, Hou (14.6 VORP; 117.3 IP, 60 R): 83.93 MPH, +4.74 MPH

              Slider (83.93) rides 2.89” and 0.89” away from righties

              Fastball (88.67) rises 5.13” from slider and in 5.04” on righties

  54. Arroyo, Cin (13.1 VORP; 200 IP, 116 R): 74.27 MPH, +15.09 MPH

              Slider (74.27) rides 0.96” and 8.3” away from righties

              Fastball (89.18) rises 8.93” from slider and in 3.67” on righties

  50. Od. Perez, Was (12.0 VORP; 159.7 IP, 87 R): 89.02 MPH, -6.16 MPH

              Fastball (89.02) rides 8.37” and in 5.68” on lefties

              Slider (82.86) breaks down 4.75” from fastball and 0.81” away from lefties

  59. Suppan, Mil (3.6 VORP; 177 IP, 110 R): 87.3 MPH, -3.98 MPH

              Fastball (87.3) rides 9.56” and in 6.19” on righties

              “Cutter” (83.32) breaks down 5.24” from fastball and in 2.45” on righties

  69. Zito, SF (-0.9 VORP; 180 IP, 115 R): 84.92 MPH, -10.52 MPH

              Fastball (84.92) rides 11.7” and in 3.36” on lefties

              Change (74.4) breaks down 6.74” from fastball and in 6.98” on lefties

  63. Hendrickson, Fla (-4.3 VORP; 133.7 IP, 87 R): 88.43 MPH, -14.79 MPH

              Fastball (88.43) rides 9.36” and in 6.99” on lefties

              Curveball (73.64) breaks down 13.09” from fastball and 4.02” away from lefties

  70. Bergmann, Was (-6.3 VORP; 139.7 IP, 94 R): 90.41 MPH, -5.32 MPH

              Fastball (90.41) rides 9.8” and in 5.87” on righties

              Change (85.09) breaks down 3.86” from fastball and in 2.21” on righties

  71. Correia, SF (-9.9 VORP; 110 IP, 80 R): 89.43 MPH, -6.92 MPH

              Fastball (89.43) rides 9.64” and in 0.33” on righties

              Slider (82.51) breaks down 9.13” from fastball and 3.95” away from righties

  72. Gorzelanny, Pit (-11.4 VORP; 105.3 IP, 79 R): 90.32 MPH, -6.86 MPH

              Fastball (90.32) rides 9.67” and in 7.73” on lefties

              Change (83.46) breaks down 5.78” from fastball and in 7.61” on lefties

  With 1 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• NL Pitchers Ranked by Pitch-Type (Explanation)

  Posted Nov 24 2008, 02:02 PM by radio silence

  One of the best advances in the statistical movement deals with the combination of stats and Pitch F/X technology, which measures strike zones, pitch types, movement, velocity, and of course, whether or not the batter swung, laid off, made contact, etc. This is utilized in a few different ways by different people; the people at FanGraphs present sweet stats for players' swing-tendencies and contact-tendencies, on pitches both inside and outside of the zone (awesome, awesome stuff). They can do the same for pitchers and their tendencies for making batters miss. Using pitch f/x data, pitch-types, tendencies, and velocities can be compiled for pitchers, and that's exactly what Josh Kalk does with his player cards. His blog and website absolutely rules, and if you don't frequent it, you should. He collects, corrects, and compiles Pitch F/X information and presents them in convenient player cards.

   I recently utilized Baseball Prospectus Runs Prevented and VORP stats to compile a ranking of pitchers from rotation spot 1-5, utilizing only NL pitchers who pitched at least 100 innings in the NL. Today I finally got to a long-time project that I had been eyeing -- combining the quality rankings (VORP, Runs Prevented) and the raw stuff. Now, others do this in much more scientific ways, but I decided to do this in a pure ranking system that divided pitchers by three different types: those with a fastball above 91 MPH, those with a fastball below 91 MPH, and those who throw a sinker.

  All of this can be discerned from Josh Kalk's player cards, and I used them heavily for this survey, but I should say that this is my interpretation of the data. This is not his interpretation, and he may well disagree with this usage if he saw it; I'm not sure. But, this is a combination of my pitching survey, and a division of pitchers by their prominent fastball / sinker type.

  The number next to each pitcher is their ranking according to runs prevented from the previous survey, and here I ranked them twice: (1) by fastball / sinker type, and (2) by VORP.

  I interpreted the horizontal and vertical movement ratings by Kalk's suggestions, so that the data makes sense, but I added my own personal twist. I compared only the pitcher's two most prominent pitches, to make comparison across the board more even (so we don't have to deal with extensive information for a guy like Dave Bush, who throws apprximately 5-6 pitches, versus a guy like Oliver Perez, who basically throws two pitches).

  I attempted to incorporate colloquial language to present the pitch f/x rankings. Movement for pitch f/x is measured against spinless balls of the same velocity of the pitch that is tracked, which means that just about every fastball "rises," and even most sinkers "rise." To present this colloquially, I describe vertical rising movement as "riding," which is a term that I think evokes a mental image that properly describes what pitches that actually spin do -- that fastball by Ben Sheets doesn't actually rise 11 inches; it simply doesn't drop as much as a spinless pitch.

  So rather than writing, "Ben Sheets' fastball rises 11" and moves in 4" on righties," I write, "Ben Sheets' fastball rides 11" and in 4" on righties." This is something our eyes can see when we watch Sheets' best fastballs; now instead of simply saying "Ben Sheets' fastball rides in on righties," we have the benefit of actually measuring the ball against another spinless ball, and finding coordinates of its motion -- and thus, "Ben Sheets' fastball rides 11" and in 4" on righties."

  Now, some pitchers don't throw a fastball or sinker as their primary pitch. So, I simply used the slower pitch -- be it a curve (Wandy Rodriguez), a cutter (Doug Davis), a slider (Chris Sampson, Bronson Arroyo), or a change up (Edinson Volquez), among othets -- as their primary pitch, and then rate the fastball or sinker accordingly. This is sometimes counter-intuitive (I never would have guessed that Volquez throws the change more frequently than both of his fastballs), but it accurately reflects their pitch selection.

  Pitch selection is what I wanted to reflect in this survey, not pure stuff. This comes up as an issue with some pitchers, like Carlos Zambrano, who throw several fastballs, but their fastest pitch is not their main fastball selection. Anyone that watches Zambrano knows he can throw the ball faster than 92 MPH, but that's not his main fastball that he selects most frequently.

  I don't doubt that most of these major leaguers could easily throw the ball harder than they regularly pitch. Here I wanted to capture what the pitcher is getting at with the selection of his two most frequently selected pitches. In almost every case, these are the two pitches a pitcher throws for more than 50% of his total pitches, so it is important to know what he's throwing more than half the time -- and maybe then we can figure out why.

  Now, I incorporated one more interpretation of my own, which is not included in Kalk's original data. I'm not even sure this is correct, but I do it anyway simply because i want to present the data in an intuitive way that reflects how we see the baseball. In judging the difference between the primary and secondary pitches and their differences in vertical data, I don't merely present both of their technical pitch f/x calculations. Instead I present the proper measurement of the primary pitch, and present the secondary pitch in comparison.

  For instance, Ben Sheets' fastball "rises" almost 11" vertically, and his second pitch, the curveball, is thrown with so much spin that it actually drops almost 3" more than a spinless ball. Now, instead of simply presenting the 3" drop from the spinless ball, I present the difference between thw two pitches. So, if Sheets' fastball rides 11" through the zone, his curveball (which is actually spinning!), effectively breaks down over 13" compared to the fastball. This is quite a drop, which makes sense given that Sheets most often throws his curve so hard that it breaks into the dirt at a rather high velocity (over 80 MPH on average).

  So, to present Ben Sheets, here's what I write:

  7. Sheets, Mil (52.4 VORP; 198.3 IP, 74 R): 93.54 MPH, -12.98 MPH

              Fastball (93.54) rides 10.76” and in 4.17” on righties

              Curveball (80.56) breaks down 13.51” from fastball and 3.15” away from righties

  Sheets' basic IP, R, and VORP stats are listed, as is his rating (#7) from the original survey. I also list the top speed velocity (93.54), and the velocity differential (-12.98) between primary and secondary pitches. Now, beware, top-speed velocity of the primary pitch does not always equal fastball velocity.

  Check out Edinson Volquez:

  12. Volquez, Cin (44.3 VORP; 196 IP, 82 R): 83.07 MPH, +10.97 MPH

              Change (83.07) rides 1.83” and in 6.98” on righties

              Fastball (94.04) rises 7.59” from change and in 4.47” on righties

  Now, we certainly know that Volquez throws the ball harder than 83 MPH. But his primary pitch selection happens to be 83.07 MPH. I think this is incredibly telling about the way he pitches. His most frequently thrown fastball, then, is 94 MPH, almost 11 MPH faster than his change up, and it "rises" over 7" against the change up, which is thrown with less spin than his fastball.

  I did not adjust the horizontal movement ratings at all because that contains crucial information about the actual trajectory of the pitch. For instance, while it makes sense to talk about how two pitches compare vertically, each pitch's horizontal trajectory has a more specific trajectory than simply rising or falling; for instance, while Volquez's change up breaks over 5" lower than his fastball, it makes a lot less sense to say that his change up breaks in 2" more than his fastball -- the horizontal trajectory is more important to capture in its original statement, rather than in comparison. This will make the most sense when you come across a pitcher, like Jeff Suppan, who throws a pitch that is fairly neutral in terms of horizontal movement, which means that its vertical movement is more pronounced:

  59. Suppan, Mil (3.6 VORP; 177 IP, 110 R): 87.3 MPH, -3.98 MPH

              Fastball (87.3) rides 9.56” and in 6.19” on righties

              “Cutter” (83.32) breaks down 5.24” from fastball and in 2.45” on righties

  Now, Suppan's main fastball is not a sinker (surprisingly), but his regular, "riding," cross-seam fastball. Thus, comparing a pitch that Kalk labels a "cutter" -- likely one of Suppan's various little pitches he throws in the low-to-mid-80s, we can see that the cutter does not ride as high as the fastball, meaning that its spin drops it into the zone lower than the fastball; but compare the horizontal movement. Both pitches move "in" on righties, but the cutter moves much less so. Instead of saying that the cutter drops 5.24" from the fastball and almost 4" away from righties, however, the proper trajectory is still maintained with the "in 2.45" on righties," because even though it breaks in less, it is not proper to say that the pitch breaks towards lefties. It might break less towards righties, but a pitch that breaks less towards righties is not the same as a pitch that breaks away from righties.

  Thus, horizontal movement is a bit more complex to write about in a colloquial manner, because there is really only one way that a spinning pitch can vertically "break;" but the spin of a pitch can actually horizontally break a pitch in two different directions.

  A fastball cannot break "up;" a rising fastball doesn't actually rise. But a fastball can break "in" or "out," depending upon its type. And that's why I presented the horizontal information in its original form, which Kalk corrected and presented on his player cards.

  So, once again, this is my interpretation of his data, and it may or may not be correct, and he may or may not agree with it; even I admit that there are lots of issues that remain to write about, which is a good thing, because analyzing pitching is a ton of fun.

  ***

  Pitch-ratings by rotation slot: Here are the basic results of the survey via rotation spot. Oddly enough, the 1st slot of the rotation, the best of the best, did indeed throw harder and produce a higher top-speed velocity. It's rather unfair to all the others, isn't it? I mean, Sabathia, Santana, Sheets, Lincecum, Billingsley, and Oswalt each finished in the top 16. And remember, this top speed average includes Volquez's change up, the pitch he throws frequently. So, even his 94 MPH is left by the wayside, and that pitch would raise the average even more, if we were not incorporating pitch selection into the survey.

  But, I think this survey raises some unique questions: below the 1st pitchers, primary-pitch velocity and velocity differential between first and second pitches does very little to actually differentiate performance and results. For instance, compare 1st and 3rd spot pitchers, and 2nd and 3rd spot pitchers. Velocity differential and primary pitch velocity might suggest that the 3rd spot pitchers should be better -- their primary selections were thrown faster, and their velocity differential was greater. But now we have more reason to look at horizontal movement patterns, and vertical movement patterns: I'd suggest that, rather intuitively, it matters much more how a pitcher is spinning the ball, than the velocity or velocity differential. And those main exhibits produced great seasons in the 2nd rotation spot: cf. Jamie Moyer, Ted Lilly, Jorge Campillo, Wandy Rodriguez, Carlos Zambrano, Aaron Cook, and Hiroki Kuroda....

  First Starters: 498 G, 490 GS                                     3217.7 IP, 1214 R

  First starters: 3.40 runs average, 6.46 IP/G (37.0 to 73.4 VORP range)

  Avg: 91.59 MPH top speed; -8.09 MPH differential

   

  Second Starters: 488 G, 474 GS                                 2895.7 IP, 1318 R

  Second starters: 4.10 runs average, 5.93 IP/G (17.6 to 43.2 VORP)

  Avg: 89.63 MPH top speed; -4.89 MPH differential

   

  Third Starters: 463 G, 433 GS                                    2607 IP, 1366 R

  Third starters: 4.72 runs average, 5.63 IP/G (7.7 to 26.5 VORP range)

  Avg: 90.10 MPH top speed; -8.89 MPH differential

   

  Fourth Starters: 465 G, 440 GS                                  2370.7 IP, 1448 R

  Fifth starters/swingmen: 337 G, 208 GS                    1304.3 IP, 827 R

  4^th / 5^th Starters: 802 G, 648 GS                                  3675 IP, 2275 R

  5.57 runs average, 4.58 IP/G (-12.4 to 19.9 VORP range)

  Avg: 89.25 MPH top speed; -5.88 MPH differential

   

   

  More on the way...

  With 2 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Cole Hamels can't cure these junkball blues -- a knuckle-curve only a mother could love

  Posted Nov 20 2008, 01:59 PM by radio silence

  Man, I've got to admit, I am going to miss watching Mike Mussina pitch. The guy's all arms and legs coming at you, working on refining that game and reinventing himself after the fastball is gone, throwing every single pitch ever invented and working that arm angle to get those batters off balance. You've got to love a guy who throws a few curves, a bunch of fastballs, a slider, and thirty-five change ups and still adds that split-fingered fastball to his arsenal. Works to get that 85 MPH fastball past batters. Works to get that nasty sink on the 2-seamer (seriously, watch the clips ESPN is showing of that junkballer extraordinaire -- those pitches that are starting approximately 5-6 inches off the plate and coming back are fastballs!).

  So, of course the Hall of Fame debate is up, and I happen to think that after Roger Clemens comes up before him, the Moose should be an intriguing candidate. For some time, he'll benefit from the fact that he beat Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson to retirement, and maybe Greg Maddux, too. Mussina's main competition for the Hall will be those extraordinary aces who began their careers in the 1980s and 1990s and managed to make it through the steroids era as well -- I don't even think a push from Kevin Brown could unseat Mussina.

  What will be interesting is how Mussina fares against the Hall of Fame voters' biggest recent debate, that of Jack Morris and Bert Blyleven, with sidebar evidence entered from Stat Geeks vs. Shooters-from-the-hip (or, people who watch baseball vs. people who watch baseball....you figure it out!)

  I happen to think that Mussina will beat both Blyleven and Morris to the Hall. Here's why:

  (1) His loss total is much better, and he has a respectable win total (that stuff matters to the people with the ballots)

  (2) Mussina is an opportunistic retiree. His career did not drop off to the extent that the respective careers of Morris and Blyleven did. From age 34, Mussina pitched 6 seasons, with 3 of them below average (the worst was an 87 ERA+ over 152 IP in 2007). Morris pitched 6 seasons from age 34, with 4 of them below average (the worst was a 70 ERA+ over 152.7 IP in 1993), and Blyleven pitched 7 from age 34, with 3 of them below average (the worst was a 73 ERA+ over 133 IP in 1990).

  And of course, from age 34, Mussina has 3 seasons at or above 120 ERA+ (with one above 130); Blyleven has 2 (both are above 130, and one is above 140, though); Morris has 1 above 120 ERA+ from age 34 forward.

  I can only see the fact that Mussina finished with his best win total yet, and retired before he put up too many clunkers.

  (3) Mussina was so damn consistent. 15 of 18 seasons at or above 100 ERA+. 12 of 18 seasons at or above 120 ERA+. 4 of 18 seasons at or above 140 ERA+.

  Morris also had 18 seasons. 11 of 18 at or above 100 ERA+. 6 of 18 seasons at or above 120 ERA+. 0 above 140 ERA+.

  Blyleven had 22 seasons. 17 of 22 seasons at or above 100 ERA+. 11 of 22 seasons at or above 120 ERA+. 5 of 22 seasons at or above 140 ERA+.

  ***

  If the battle is Mussina versus Blyleven and Morris, I see Mussina being the bigtime candidate. Of course, he probably has some "experiential" counter-arguments that need to be defended. Unlike Morris, he doesn't have a "defining" game, or a defining moment of clutch greatness. His playoff record is 7-9, which looks bad despite a solid 3.42 ERA (and the playoff W-L is probably due more to luck; more advanced win probability calculations, such as Win Probability Added have Mussina basically even). Unlike Blyleven, he doesn't have the back-up argument behind his statistics that he played for relatively poor teams in poor markets, obscuring his perception as a national pitcher. Some might see it as a strike against Mussina that he spent almost a decade in New York, and the good 1990s years in Baltimore, and still failed to win a World Series.

  I still don't think that obscures or distorts Mussina's clear production. He's not the best pitcher of the steroids era. But he's pretty damn close. Comparing his career wins probability and statistics to the obvious leaders and other notable names and contract signees of the era:

  (Using Win Probability Added, a career running aggregate of the positive and negative shifts in game winning probability based on inning, baserunning, and score situation; Batted Runs Against Average, a career running aggregate of the positive and negative shifts in expected runs based on baserunners and outs situations; and Runs Expected Wins, a conversion of BRAA that expresses the runs-expected aggregate in terms of wins; i.e., like wins above average based on runs allowed and runs prevented against expectations. See FanGraphs for more expanations of these awesome stats. They're rather intuitive stats for expressing a running progression of a player's situational successes and failures)

   (To make reading these stats easier, think of this: a player who accumulated a 0 WPA over the course of his career has a perfectly even contribution to aggregate win and loss probability throughout his career. So, some of these pitchers are incredibly above average):
  

  Roger Clemens:

  WPA: 76.15; BRAA: 757.10 (74.06 REW)

  WPA+385.06, -WPA 308.91

   

  Randy Johnson:

  WPA: 54.16; BRAA: 548.91 (51.81 REW)

  +WPA 319.83, -WA 265.67

   

  Greg Maddux:

  WPA: 53.69; BRAA: 495.86 (51.45 REW)

  +WPA 373.77, -WPA 320.08

   

  Pedro Martinez:

  WPA: 50.91; BRAA: 513.48 (49.66 REW)

  WPA+ 212.60, -WPA 161.69

   

  Mike Mussina:

  WPA: 39.76; BRAA: 404.43 (39.08 REW)

  +WPA 265.00, -WPA 225.23

   

  Curt Schilling:

  WPA: 36.54; BRAA: 412.18 (40.21 REW)

  +WPA 244.71, -WPA 208.17

   

  Kevin Brown:

  WPA: 30.55; BRAA: 305.98 (30.87 REW)

  +WPA 250.64, -WPA 220.09

   

  Tom Glavine:

  WPA: 30.17; BRAA 307.59 (31.48 REW)

  +WPA 333.38, -WPA 303.21

   

  Kevin Appier:

  WPA: 22.54; BRAA: 213.39 (20.68 REW)

  +WPA 201.60, -WPA 179.05

   

  David Wells:

  WPA: 20.55; BRAA: 187.36 (17.07 REW)

  +WPA 263.95, -WPA 243.39

   

  Jamie Moyer:

  WPA: 12.22; BRAA: 135.29 (12.64 REW)

  +WPA 279.13, -WPA 266.91

   

  Kevin Millwood:

  WPA: 5.79; BRAA: 66.67 (6.27 REW)

  +WPA 160.50, -WPA: 154.71

   

  Mike Hampton:

  WPA: 4.72; BRAA: 53.67 (4.94 REW)

  +WPA 166.44, -WPA: 161.72

  Now, it's rather obvious that he's no Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, or Pedro. But he is definitely comparable or better than other notable aces of the era, such as Curt Schilling, Tom Glavine, and Kevin Brown. Given the way in which Mussina finished his career, he probably has a stronger case for the Hall than 300-game winner Tom Glavine, and everyone's favorite clutch ace, Schilling. And it cannot hurt that Mussina pitched throughout his bigtime contract with the Yankees with more success than other notable big-contract signees, Brown and Hampton.

  (Perhaps in the era of high pitching contracts in the 1990s and beyond, a player has a better case for the Hall based on how they pitched through a huge contract versus their career win total, ERA, and IP. Could the fact that Mussina is one of the easiest pitchers to name as a relative success throughout a long-term deal help his case for the Hall?)

  But, really, we'll miss that stuff. Seriously, how many other truly crafty pitchers outlasted Mussina in this era? Maddux? Okay, he's easily better. Moyer? His longevity is insane, but he's not an ace like Mussina could be considered. Pedro? Yeah, nothing beats Pedro's work as a sinker/change up guy, but his career finish is not looking as strong as Mussina's.

  I've got some serious junkball blues for Mussina. That big 'ol curveball, that neat l'il sinkerball, and everything in between; those flying elbows and legs, and the illusion that that baseball hat is not even going to stay on his head.

  A pure junkballer, baby. And I've got those blues, Mussina.

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Rickie Weeks is not a bust

  Posted Nov 14 2008, 01:07 PM by radio silence

   

  I'd imagine that if we polled the average Brewers fan leaving Miller Park, the resounding opinion on Rickie Weeks would be that he is a bust -- a plain and simple high-draft pick bust who never lived up to the hype, his minor league numbers, or the promise of his college career.

  But, part of me has always wondered if Weeks has been more of a victim of incredibly high standards and ridiculous hype coming from the Brewers' organization -- the expectation is always that he breaks out at some point, not that he continue to work as an average MLB second baseman. Early hype had Weeks as the type of huge power threat fit for the #3 role, and his power/speed combination brought whispers of a 20/20, 30/30 threat at a historically weak offensive position. It seems that no matter the development, no matter the reality to his production, Brewers fans and the Brewers organization have helped themselves to as many servings of Rickie Weeks hype as their bellies can handle. 

  After all, it was never about producing a functional core of young major leaguers, right? The desire was to produce a core of young major league stars, which of course ignores that fact that the vast majority of baseball players drafted indeed become average players, or worse. 

  What leads me to believe that Rickie Weeks is the victim of unrealistic and unfocused hype is simple: the history of the second pick in the MLB Rule IV draft, or the June amateur draft. One might think, intuitively, that there is little difference between the first and second draft pick since the inception of the draft. But upon a closer look, that's not really the case.

  There were 30 position players drafted with the first pick before 2008; 28 of those picks made it to the majors, with 22 accumulating 1000 or more career AB, and 20 accumulating 2000 or more career AB. 13 of those players posted a career OPS at or above .800, and 4 posted a career OPS at or above .900. Lofty company, indeed; hell, there are 11 first picks who posted at least 5000 career AB (or more).

  By comparison, the second pick saw 22 position players drafted before 2007, with 19 of those picks making it to the majors. 17 of those players accumulated 1000 or more AB during their career, and 12 players accumulated 2000 or more AB. The kicker? Only 5 second picks posted a career OPS at or above .800, and none reached that exceptional .900 OPS plateau. Even further, only 4 second picks ever made it to (or beyond) 5000 career AB.

  Here's the breakdown:

  Position Players drafted: 30 (1st), 22 (2nd)

  To majors: 28 (1st; 93%), 19 (2nd; 86%)

  1000 AB: 22 (1st;  73%), 17 (2nd; 77%)

  2000 AB: 20 (1st; 67%), 12 (2nd;  55%)

  5000 AB: 11 (1st; 37%), 4 (2nd; 18%)

  +.800 OPS: 13 (1st; 43%), 5 (2nd; 23%)

  +.900 OPS: 4 (1st; 13%), 0 (2nd; 0%)

  Right off the bat, we can question the type of hype a second pick should receive. It is rather clear, by direct comparison, that the second pick has not historically matched the first pick, and even though the second pick has produced players with fine careers such as Reggie Jackson and Will Clark, the second pick cannot match Alex Rodriguez, Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey, Jr., or even Josh Hamilton.

  A more in-depth search of second picks will show the historical level of production from the second pick. Those 22 position players drafted with the second pick accumulated 77,792 plate appearances, 18,178 hits, and 30,073 total bases; the average 2nd pick career spans 3536 PA, includes 826 H, and 1367 TB, with a line of .265/.340/.438.

  That's right. Our beloved second base power/speed superstar-to-be, from draft day forward, was expected to become a superstar against the historical marker of .265/.340/.438, and an average career span of 3536 PA. This, without even considering that Weeks was the first second pick ever drafted at 2B, and only the 8th middle infielder drafted with the second pick.

  Here are those eight middle infielders drafted with the second pick:

   

  Middle Infielders:		PA	AB	H	BB	HBP	TB
  Terry Hughes		97	86	18	7	2	24
  Rick Manning		5832	5248	1349	471	9	1792
  Garry Harris		0	0	0	0	0	0
  Augie Schmidt		0	0	0	0	0	0
  Kurt Stillwell		3478	3125	779	274	18	1092
  Mark Lewis		3051	2795	736	196	16	1061
  B.J. Upton		1554	1339	371	190	8	570
  Rickie Weeks		1907	1615	395	215	59	656
  Totals		15919	14208	3648	1353	112	5195
  AVG:	0.257		AVG PA:	1990
  OBP:	0.321		AVG H:	456
  SLG:	0.366		AVG TB:	649
  OPS:	0.687

   

  Amazing, isn't it? 

  My whole point isn't that we shouldn't criticize and analyze Weeks' shortcomings; that we shouldn't expect him to play well with his tools. He is a very toolsy player, has a lot of talent, and should be able to continue to produce as an average 2B.

  But against which history do we compare him? In the context of the second pick, in the history of the Rule IV draft, Rickie Weeks is one of the best middle infielders drafted with that historical pick. In a historical draft pick that has not produced superstar second baseman, that has not produced lengthy careers in the middle infield, Weeks' career is already a success.

  Now, this says nothing of his minor league stats, nor his college career. There are markers in his past that suggest the type of player Weeks has been or could become. This might depend upon his development, his injury history, and whether or not he's miscast by the Brewers in the lead-off role.

  There are a whole host of points by which we can analyze Weeks. But the one point that I think is undeniably false is any point that suggests that Rickie Weeks is a bust.

  I do not think we can look at the historical evidence, nor Weeks' rather average career to this point (he is a career .245/.352/.406 second baseman). In the next year, Weeks' career will surpass the average length of a second pick middle infield career; he will likely surpass average PA, average H, and he has already surpassed the average TB accumulated by a second pick middle infielder.

  So, now it remains an issue of Weeks putting it together. But hopefully he can do so in 2009 without the burden of unrealistic expectations, which have been forwarded by the organization, and by extension, the fans. Rickie Weeks should be analyzed, should be criticized for his shortcomings, but he should also be upheld for what he is.
  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Six Questions

  Posted Nov 11 2008, 07:12 AM by radio silence

  I have long thought that the Brewers’ young core underachieved in 2008, and this stroke in fortune cost the Brewers dearly in overall runs totals throughout the season. What an odd occurrence, if you think about it – how likely is it that of the 6 regulars aged 28 or younger, 5 of them regress during the same season?

   

  I’ve assembled a series of questions based around each player’s individual regressions, or in Hardy’s case, evaluating why he didn’t regress and assessing his chances at regression in 2009.

   

  Most of the stats I’ve used should be intuitive, and I’ve linked the main Baseball-Reference pages so you can read along with me, year by year. I went within the basic AVG/OBP/SLG trio to provide a more precise picture of their production. Here are two stats that might not seem intuitive:

   

  -BABIP (Batting Average on Balls in Play). This is simply the rate at which every batted ball that was not a home run drops in for a hit. It makes a bit more sense as a defensive metric, i.e., how opposing defenses convert a batter’s balls in play into outs (which would be easily approximated by: ((1) – BABIP)). I took BABIP figures from B-R.

   

  -BIP% (Balls in Play Percentage): This should be intuitive: it’s simply the rate at which a batter puts the ball in play. I calculate this as ( (AB – HR – K) / (PA) ), simply to correspond with the BABIP stats. I understand that we could use a more thorough calculation for this figure, but that requires more in-depth debate than I’d prefer for this analysis, and that might also compromise the compatibility of BABIP and my BIP%.

   

  These six players are the bread and butter of the Brewers in 2009, regardless of other acquisitions, and these are some ways to approach their expected production.

   

  1. How can Braun improve his OBP?

   

  Ryan Braun is a bizarre player. He slugs the ball like nobody else, and manages to maintain a high batting average while striking out frequently, and doesn’t walk (although to his credit, he improved his walk rate slightly in 2008).

   

  Year	H/PA	BB/PA	BABIP	BIP%
  2007	.297	.059	.361	.620
  2008	.262	.063	.305	.671
  Career	.277	.061	.328	.649

  
  

  The issue for Braun in 2008 was simple: he put the ball in play more frequently, and defenses corrected themselves from the unrealistic AVG on balls in play from Braun’s Rookie of the Year campaign.

   

  For Braun to build his OBP, he will need to do one of two things: (1) Find more ways to get those balls in play to drop for hits, which may or may not force him to abandon some of his powerful approach, or (2) Walk more, which may or may not force him to abandon the approach that allows him to hit for such power.

   

  As it stands, Braun relies so thoroughly on pure hitting that his ability to make fewer outs has hit a wall, depending upon how defenses play him, and how pitchers pitch him. If he cannot add more dimensions to his offensive game, his OBP will continue to follow his basic ability to get the hits to drop, which can fluctuate very much from year to year (witness the transition from 2007 to 2008, which fluctuated by 6%).

   

  2. How likely is it for Prince to improve his production?

   

  Before Prince’s monstrous September, the major complaint about the slugger was that his power numbers declined – specifically his home runs. Throughout his power outage, however, Prince’s doubles total was consistently more alarming. It should have been clear that Prince’s HR surge in 2007 might not have been likely to be repeated in 2008, but along with that HR return to reality, the doubles total declined.

   

  Year	H/PA	BB/PA	HR/H	2B/H	XBH/H
  2006	.238	.091	.182	.227	.416
  2007	.242	.132	.303	.212	.527
  2008	.233	.121	.210	.185	.407
  Career	.239	.113	.229	.209	.448

   

  Analyzing Prince’s production and the possibility for improvement depends upon the definition of improvement. If improving his rate of getting on base is the issue, it seems clear that there are some ways in which Prince can find his way on base on a more frequent basis. Behind his power issues in 2008, Fielder drew slightly fewer walks and hit at a lower rate. These rates fell in a very moderate way, and might be easier to correct than his power numbers.

   

  If improvement for Prince means more power, then the issue might seem more problematic. Although Prince’s HR totals, even in 2008, are at a strong level, his doubles rate has dropped in both 2007 and 2008, and the question remains: how does Prince hit more doubles?

   

  Overall improvement for Fielder might actually mean more of a dip in HR, a corresponding raise in 2B, and slightly higher hitting and walking totals – that is, more OBP, and a SLG driven more by doubles and less by the long ball.

   

  3. Will Hardy regress?

   

  Hardy was the only youngster that did not regress in 2008. But, many fans questioned his ability to sustain his 2007 production, which was not as much of a fluke as some expected. That said, are there areas in which we can expect regression for 2009?

   

  Year	H/PA	BB/PA	2B/H	HR/H	XBH/H	BABIP	BIP%
  2005	.215	.103	.239	.098	.348	.262	.738
  2006	.223	.072	.161	.161	.323	.257	.719
  2007	.257	.063	.183	.159	.348	.279	.772
  2008	.256	.083	.193	.149	.366	.305	.711
  Career	.244	.080	.196	.143	.353	.282	.739

   

  The main issue with Hardy in 2009 will be to maintain the walk level that he produced in 2008. He improved by a strong 2% from 2007 to 2008, while maintaining strong hitting totals. This will be crucial to his 2009 success, given the consistency with which he has hit for power in recent years.

   

  The second issue to look for is a defensive correction. Hardy’s AVG on balls in play jumped by almost 3% in 2008, and he put the ball in play almost 6% less frequently than he did in 2007. That correction allowed Hardy’s hitting rate between 2007 and 2008 to remain consistent, although for completely different reasons.

   

  If Hardy does not put the ball in play more frequently and defenses correct their approach, Hardy will be in for a noticeable regression in 2009.

   

  4. Why did Hart regress?

   

  Hart’s fall from grace is extreme and baffling: he literally became one of the least valuable right fielders in the 2008 NL after producing as one of the best in 2007. Given the fact that his struggles were compacted in just a couple months’ time, the perception of his struggles were amplified. What gives?

    

  Year	H/PA	BB/PA	XBH/H	K/PA	BABIP	BIP%
  2007	.263	.064	.443	.175	.321	.675
  2008	.250	.041	.433	.166	.293	.735
  Career	.253	.056	.425	.180	.306	.699

   

  Here’s the simple issue: Hart suffered almost the exact opposite fate of Hardy. He put the ball in play almost 6% more frequently than in 2007, but his AVG on balls in play dropped significantly (3%), which explains his overall drop in hitting.

   

  Hart consistently walked less, struck out less, and homered less in 2008, which spelled disaster when coupled with worse luck. It might be a stretch simply to suggest that luck will correct itself in 2009, but one thing is for certain: Hart needs to walk more so that his production does not depend so exclusively on his hitting fortunes, and at the very least that will afford him more consistent production potential.

   

  5. Which Hall is the real Hall?

   

  Hall’s fall from 2006 seemed shocking in 2007, and 2008 was simply odd: how is it that he managed to regress once again, from a regression?

   

  Year	H/PA	BB/PA	2B/H	HR/H	K/PA	BIP%
  2005	.267	.071	.267	.116	.189	.698
  2006	.238	.104	.269	.241	.266	.559
  2007	.229	.080	.304	.122	.254	.616
  2008	.203	.083	.241	.165	.277	.592
  Career	.234	.077	.260	.151	.249	.622

   

  Here’s the deal: (a) since 2005, Hall is putting the ball in play at a consistently low level, but (b) he is doing so without hitting home runs as frequently. This means that although his percentage of balls in play is consistently low, it does not occur from year to year for the same reasons. (c) Coupled with a drop in walks from 2006, and a strong drop in hitting rate, well, you know the rest.

   

  All told, the 2006 Hall is a rather bizarre occurrence, but the 2005 Hall looks rather nice: put the ball in play more, hit fewer HR, walk at a lower rate, hit a lot of doubles, and hit at a strong rate.

   

  Hall without a power approach might be the best chance at improvement.

   

  6. What might more hitting mean for Weeks?

   

  I am convinced that Weeks is criticized so frequently by fans because he is a strong secondary player. He walks at a very good rate, gets hit by pitches, and steals bases. His overall power percentages are not bad, but they don’t get noticed because his primary hitting level is so low.

   

  In his career, what does more hitting mean?

   

  Year	H/PA	BB/PA	2B/H	HR/H	K/PA	BIP%
  2005	.208	.010	.152	.151	.232	.606
  2006	.242	.073	.150	.080	.223	.627
  2007	.190	.154	.219	.167	.229	.547
  2008	.198	.118	.198	.126	.205	.618
  Career	.207	.113	.182	.129	.223	.597

   

  It seems interesting to suggest that, based around his career, hitting and walking seem to be exclusive for Weeks. We might not want to expect his hitting to be added to his ability to walk at a high level. Furthermore, his best hitting season (2006) was accompanied by lower power totals. The strike out rate remains rather consistent, although Weeks made a huge improvement in that regard in 2008, and he did raise the percentage of balls in play and overall hitting percentage from 2007 to 2008. That’s a good thing.

   

  If Weeks can put more balls in play, at the expense of walks and home runs, that might be the best way for him to improve that primary hitting. The question is, how will that affect the rest of his offensive approach?

  With 2 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link