Revisions and Precision which a moment will reverse

In responding to my 0-0 post, Precision Blogger implies an interesting question that deserves its own post:

"Your ordering might penalize a certain kind of pitcher that does well. I think that baseball commentators want to see more of this kind of pitcher: the guy who believes in his stuff. He doesn't throw a lot of balls because he knows that usually, when a batter makes contact, he'll get the out. These pitchers risk some good, solid hits, but it's not that important when the batter makes good contact, because, overall, the pitcher expects to do well. Some aggressive pitchers of this type throw a lot of fastballs and give up more than an average share of home runs. They do well if their team can score, because they battle hard and don't give up big innings."

 As a reminder, my ranking of outcomes on the first pitch is:

1. Swinging strike
2. Weakly hit (in play, or foul ball -- regardless of outcome)
3. Well hit foul (not straight back, perimeter, or outside of the strike zone)
4. Called strike (perimeter)
5. Called strike (center of strike zone)
6. Well hit foul (not straight back, in the strike zone)
7. Ball (close)
8. Ball (not so close)
9. Well hit foul (straight back)
10. Well hit, in play (regardless of outcome)

With 1 being the the best a pitcher can do and 10 being the worst.  The implied question is "isn't there another class of pitcher that your rankings will under-rate?"

The short answer is yes.  The longer answer is no.  But the deeper answer is maybe. Allow me to explain.

Yes.

I have admitted this before, but I really can't admit it enough:  I'm not really a student of baseball.  I don't have the time.  Since I became a serious pitch counter, I have only had time to watch Red Sox games (plus playoff games).  It is quite possible that there are classes of pitchers that I just don't know that well because Theo Epstein doesn't like them.  So, I definitely allow for the possibility that I am unfairly decrementing those guys.

I will also add that PB's assessment probably describes a significant percentage of closers who get by on "looks" (velocity) alone.  Both Papelbon and Jenks might well fit that category.  I'll have to think about that more.

No.

The idea that a pitcher can be effective while giving up on strike outs has appeal, but -- on average -- the numbers don't back that up.  In 2010 there were:

• 165,353 at bats
• 42,554 of which resulted in hits
• 34,306 of which resulted in strike outs

So, the average batter batted .257.  But when the average batter didn't strike out, he batted .325.  How good is that?  There are only a handful of guys who batted .325 and didn't make it into the Hall of Fame.  Allowing batters to hit the ball turns the average batter into a Hall of Famer.

Maybe.

PB asks a question with which I have long been fascinated.  Are there any great starting pitchers who live by much quicker at bats but fewer strike outs?  There are two optics I like to use for starting pitchers that are in opposition:

• Strikeouts per nine innings
• innings per start.  

Take two pitchers with identical batting average against.  It would seem that the one who relied more on strikeouts would throw more pitches and fewer innings.  I feel like there ought to be some great pitchers who have fewer strike outs per nine innings. 

If you look at the 50 pitchers who put up the highest inning counts in 2010, 29 of them struck out 7 or more per inning. Only 10 struck out 6 or fewer.  The guy at the basement of this list was Mark Buerhle, best known for his perfect game in 2009 (he also came pretty close, with another no-hitter in 2007).  A quick look at his lifetime stats show that Buehrle has never been a huge strikeout guy.  In his abbreviated rookie season he approached 6.5 but only topped 6.0 once in the 10 years subsequent.  Maybe he's that guy.

I'll be watching this more closely.  Strikeouts per 9 is clearly a good indicator of pitcher longevity, but that doesn't mean it's the correct way to evaluate every kind of pitcher.

Cheers,
jg

Waiting for Francona

People used to believe that Pedro Martinez was on a 100-pitch count leash. In 2003, many thought the failure to enforce that leash led to the calamity that followed (and I shan't say more about that today).

I'd like to see Beckett on a similar leash. Looking at his batting average against since 2002 shows that something was painfully different last year:

2002 -- .232
2003 -- .246
2004 -- .235
2005 -- .234
2006 -- .245
2007 -- .245
2008 -- .256
2009 -- .244
2010 -- .292

Yikes.

I watched a lot of those games. Some of them never looked good. But for several, they shared the following qualities:

Fewer than 60 pitches through 4 innings and very few base runners.

One or two massacres among the 5th, 6th and 7th innings.

What happened? Was it mental? Physical? Did the opposing batters just get wise to him?

Darned if know. But I suspect that there is something there. Beckett's 70th through 100th pitches feel less good than the ones that come before them. I don't know if the velocity falls off. I don't know if the aim falls off. I don't really care. Here's what I'd like Francona to say to Beckett:

You get 85 pitches. That's it. If you finish the 5th inning with under 70 pitches, I let you start the 6th. But you never get the 7th until you've demonstrated consistent success in the 5th and 6th. Beckett gets more wins. The Red Sox get more wins. What's not to like?

And who gets those extra innings? How about Wakefield? He gets plenty of advanced notice and gets to warm up like a starter. And I like the idea of him having a defined roll -- right now it looks like he's waiting for one of the starters fall prey to an injury...

Will it happen? Will Francona bring down the boot on Beckett? Of course not. If I expected the Red Sox to try such creativity, I will find that I am forever Waiting For Francona.

Cheers,
JG