At the end of last week, things seemed pretty down for the Twins. After a brutal three-game sweep at Yankee Stadium, things started out poorly against the Indians in Cleveland on Friday, when the Twins lost a close game 5-4. For starting pitcher Livan Hernandez, it wasn't exactly a case of bad luck, as he allowed 15 baserunners in eight innings, including 12 hits, four of which went for extra-bases. For the Twins hitters, until Justin Morneau's ninth-inning. two-run homer, swung with futility against lefty Cliff Lee, striking out 10 times and walking no times, managing only two runs against the Cy Young contender.
However, luck did turn around the last two games. The Twins greeted Fausto Carmona's return to the mound with a fervant onslaught, eviscerating Carmona's pitching for 9 runs in just 2 2/3 innings, with seven hits and three walks, including a Brian Buscher three-run blast to knock Carmona out of the game. In total, the Twins offense managed 15 hits and four walks Saturday night, the stars being Buscher, with his 3-for-5 night and five RBI, Delmon Young, who went 3-for-5 with two RBI, and Justin Morneau, who went 2-for-3 with a double, two walks, and two runs scored.
Yesterday, the Twins offense didn't blow anyone out of the water, but they did rally in a very encouraging way. With the game tied in the ninth and lefty closer Rafael Perez on the mound, Morneau, who came into the game 1-for-8 against Perez, belted a game-winning double to center. Jason Kubel followed up with his own RBI single off the lefty. Anytime the Twins lefties hitters are doing that well against a tough lefty pitcher, then you know that things are looking up for the team. Here are a few other notes on the weekend:
* Yesterday's game also featured plenty of good pitching. Nick Blackburn bounced back from a rough start against the Yankees that featured some ugly defense by getting the opposite play behind him. Blackburn went seven innings, allowing only four hits and a walk while striking out three, lowering his ERA to 3.68. Of course, the two amazing catches by Denard Span certainly helped things. Span had quite the weekend in center field filling in for Carlos Gomez, who hurt himself Friday night making his own spectacular, athletic catch before hurting a disk in his back when he collided with the wall.
* Beyond the great starting pitching and the stellar defense of Span, one depressing statistic still lurks. Joe Nathan picked up his 28th save yesterday and with a scoreless inninig, dropped his ERA to a eye-popping 1.05. That goes along with a 0.91 WHIP and a 47/11 K/BB ratio in 42 2/3 innings. What is the problem? The continued underuse of Nathan, who has only three appearances in nine games since the return from the All-Star game. Nathan remains on pace for only 65 innings, so it is about time that Gardy starts to get slightly more flexible in his use, as Nathan could easily survive 70 or even a few more innings just fine, while increasing the Twins chances of winning in any close game.
* Lost in the 11-4 offensive shelling of Saturday night was good pitching from both Scott Baker and most of the Twins bullpen. Any improvement in the bullpen is good news for Twins fan, though its not all that meaningful that Brian Bass or Craig Breslow had solid scoreless innings in low-pressure situations. That is in fact the only places they have had much success this year. Baker, on the other hand, continues to show up as the Twins ace. Baker only pitched five innings Saturday, but he did manage to dominate many Indians hitters, striking out five. Overall, his numbers look impressive across the board, with a 3.38 ERA, a 1.11 WHIP, a .242 BAA, and a 81/18 B/KK ratio in 96 innings. Easily, the B/KK ratio is the most impressive statistic for a young pitcher, as it bodes very well for his future.
Today, the Twins will start an important four-game series against the White Sox at the Metrodome, starting with a matchup of Kevin Slowey and Mark Buerhle tonight. Hopefully, the Twins bats keep up some success against lefties and that may well happen, since the Twins have hit Buerhle well this year, with 16 hits and two homers in 13 2/3 innings against him this year, giving him a 5.27 ERA against the Twins so far in 2008.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
asily, the B/KK ratio is the most impressive statistic for a young pitcher, as it bodes very well for his future.
Where is the evidence for this? Most pitchers do not give up a lot of walks when they are pitching effectively and some of them will be strikeout pitchers. But a starter who gets only 15 outs and gives up 3 earned runs is not really pitching effectively, regardless of their K/BB ratio. This was Baker's worst start in a long time.
Nathan could easily survive 70 or even a few more innings just fine, while increasing the Twins chances of winning in any close game.
What evidence is there for this? To begin with, the number of outs a pitcher gets is only partially related to the amount of work they do. But what evidence at all exists for the notion that the total number of outs for a season is some kind of quota that can be allocated so if they get fewer outs at the beginning of the season you can use those outs later in the season.
I don' think the fact a pitcher was not heavily used the first half of the season, means you can overuse him the second half with impunity. If Nathan is used a lot more, the Twins are going to pay for it with reduced effectiveness. We have seen that in the playoffs with Nathan...
I'm not sure I was implying that Nathan should be used with "impunity." And evidence for what I said is pretty simple. Nathan has effectively thrown that amount of innings in the recent past with no problems. (Don't refer to the 2004 playoffs, because we've been over that) The number of outs is only partially related to the amount of work they do? This seems pretty hard to prove. It is fairly obviously connected, since the more work you do, the more outs you must get as a pitcher and, vice versa; the more outs you get, the more work you've done. Obviously, leverage and pitch counts work in there (or amount of pitches), but that hardly means the connection is suspect.
I am not suggesting there is some "quota," but merely reflecting on what others have also said, which is that Gardy's use of Nathan is far too judicious and given the fact that he has no one else nearly as good or reliable, that Nathan should be used in some more, select high-leverage situations outside of save situations.
As for the K/BB ratio, there is plenty of evidence of it and I'm not sure its worth going over. I believe I already alluded in the post to the fact that Baker's start wasn't that great, as he only went five innings, but even in a start with struggles, he managed some dominance. Frankly, when you have such an outstanding K/BB ratio, it suggests that a pitcher has not been too lucky and that his stats are sustainable. In calling Baker the ace of the staff, its worth pointing to a statistic that suggests that his very good stats won't be falling hard anytime soon. Do I really need to point the high number of excellent ace pitchers in recent history who all had great K/BB ratios in their best years? (Johan, Pedro, Schilling, Randy Johnson in his best years, Roy Holliday, Roy Oswalt, etc)
Nathan has effectively thrown that amount of innings in the recent past with no problems.
I don't see how that is relevant. Nathan has not pitched two innings at a time very often, which seems to be what you are suggesting. And if he pitches more and/or more often, then you have to expect his performance to degrade.
It is fairly obviously connected, since the more work you do, the more outs you must get as a pitcher
Tell that to Baker who threw 97 pitches and only got 15 outs. The reality is that Nathan may throw 10 pitches and get 3 outs or he may throw 30 pitches and get 3 outs. I don't think those are the same amount of work.
that hardly means the connection is suspect.
There is obviously some connection. You can't get people out without throwing pitches. But pitchers can throw 8 pitches in an inning or 45.
e has no one else nearly as good or reliable, that Nathan should be used in some more, select high-leverage situations outside of save situations.
That has nothing to do with how many innings he has already pitched. Its just a rehash of the argument about how closers are used.
As for the K/BB ratio, there is plenty of evidence of it
Actually there isn't any evidence for the claim that ratio has any meaning beyond "Fewer walks, good. More strikeouts, good." That is obviously true. But if a pitcher his getting knocked around, it doesn't have any meaning. And if they aren't getting knocked around, it doesn't really matter how many batters they strike out.
it suggests that a pitcher has not been too lucky
I don't know why you think that. There are lots of ways luck effects pitchers. Do you really think it is an accident that neither team was hitting in Bakers two 1-0 losses? Or was there something about the game environment that helped both pitchers? I tend to think the latter. Lucky for Baker.
"Do I really need to point the high number of excellent ace pitchers in recent history who all had great K/BB ratios in their best years? (Johan, Pedro, Schilling, Randy Johnson in his best years, Roy Holliday, Roy Oswalt, etc)"
And interesting list. Do you really think their K/BB ratio is the common denominator. All of them won a lot of games, so I guess wins are a great predictor of future success too.
The best measure of staff ace is innings pitched. Baker is barely averaging 6 innings per game. That is not really ace material.
So, to boil it down, you are arguing that wins are a better predictor of the true value of a pitcher and future success? Well, then you may want to look deeper into those stats, because there are a lot more young pitchers who fail badly after initial success in terms of wins over those who keep up great K/BB ratios. Dontrelle Willis anyone? But of course, I have already tried numerous times, as well as my colleague, to prove how wins are not a very valuable stat in terms of assessing the value of a pitcher, whereas something like K/BB ratio is. It doesn't seem overly complicated that the pitcher has more control over his walks and strikeouts then whether or not his defense plays well behind him and his offense scores him runs. This is precisely why Bert Blyeven is a significantly better pitcher historically than the overrated Jack Morris.
As for Nathan, I am not calling for him to take on two innings more often, but simply to be used more period and in more situations. Saves are an even worse stat than wins in some ways and its painful how much they are the focus for some people. Its much more important to have your best pitcher on the mound in a tie game or even a one-run game in the eight over the ninth than to get three outs with a three-run lead.
I would disagree that innings pitcher is the best assessment of a staff ace. What, the fact that Livan stays on the hill longer to give up more runs makes him more ace material? Also, I'd hardly say that Baker was knocked around. Three runs is not in that ballpark and its signficant that his worst start, to you, is one in which he still got through enough innings, didn't give up many runs, and continued to show good, dominant stuff.
I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Mosvick that Nathan has been underused since the All-Star break -- the Twins have lost five of their nine games since the break and I don't think Nathan would have given them a better chance of winning any of those; meanwhile three of the four wins have been blowouts.
With that said, tt, you're acting like the number of pitches thrown in an outing is some magical mysterious variable. It's not. It's very easy to look up. In his last three appearances, Nathan has thrown 9, 16 and 19 pitches. He has thrown 30+ pitches in an outing only once all season, and 20+ pitches nine times. He hasn't recorded more than three outs in an appearance once all season, and while a few of those appearances have been strenuous, I don't think there's much of an argument that he's been consistently racking up big pitch counts the way Baker did on Sunday.
here are a lot more young pitchers who fail badly after initial success in terms of wins over those who keep up great K/BB ratios
How many are there in each category over the last 20 years?
I am not calling for him to take on two innings more often, but simply to be used more period and in more situations.
Where else would you use him for only one inning?
d hardly say that Baker was knocked around. Three runs is not in that ballpark.
It is when you only pitch 5 innings and have to be bailed out by the bullpen with no one out and a runner on base.
Livan stays on the hill longer to give up more runs makes him more ace material?
Sure, if you want to look only at their most recent appearance. Giving up 5 runs while pitching a complete game versus 3 runs and getting knocked out in the 6th without getting a batter out? Neither one is exactly says "ace", but Livan's performance is a whole lot closer than Baker's.
Its interesting you noted the bullpen did better. Perhaps part of that is they just got an extra day off because of Livan's complete game. On the other hand, pitchers threw 161 pitches in Baker's start. That's the second most pitches in 9 innings since June 1st. Staff ace? The staff ace is supposed to support the rest of the staff, not lean on them.
It's not BB/K ratio per se that's important, but it was pretty clear to me Nick was using that as a shorthand to talk about rates. Obviously if you pitch 500 innings, strike out 15 and walk 1, your ratio is excellent (15 to 1) but you're pitching batting practice (15 strikeouts out of 1500 outs?? everybody else made contact?). TT, you keep asking for "evidence", but that's precisely what there is: rock solid statistical (real statistics, as in demonstrable correlations between numbers ) evidence that good K rates and BB rates correlate with run suppression and hence winning baseball. The fact that rates and tendencies don't yield the exact same result each and every time and that sometimes guys whose results are pretty good throw 97 pitches in 5 innings and have to be pulled doesn't obviate this. K rate and BB rate hold very steady for pitchers year to year. That is, there is a SKILL to striking people out and a SKILL to not walking them. BABIP (batting average on balls in play -- that is, batting average on the non-strikeout at bats [inc. sacs]) does NOT carry over year to year with anything like the same regularity. So sometimes a guy will give up a few runs and get hit a bit: if he's still showing good control and still striking out a good rate of hitters (PER PLATE APPEARANCE, not per inning, which obviously means he could give up 10 hits and strikeout 3 every inning and look "good") there's no reason to fear unless he does it week in, week out (a la Livan) to the point where you start wondering if he's at that basic major league level of pitching.
Here's a couple articles if you care:
http://www.tangotiger.net/rc2.html
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/groundballs-flyballs-and-line-drives/
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/never-swat-an-infield-fly/
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2004-02-29_0/
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/uncovering-dips/
http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ipavg2.htm
(my guess is you'll really like the above one, as it's sort of a nay-sayers analysis that concedes there's really not THAT much non-knuckleball major league pitchers can do in the long term other than not walk people and strike people out. you have to read the whole thing to get that, though, and remember when looking at year-to-year progressions for a pitcher's career that they have the same park and a similar defense behind them)
If you use the links in those, too, you should have a pretty good handle on some relevant evidence.
As for Nathan, my main complaint isn't so much "use him for two innings at a time, period" as it is: bring him in in the 8th when it's a run-critical situation, and use him more in the 9th when the game is tied or we are down one, which are statistically more critical situations than when the Twins lead by 3 going into the 9th and it's a "save situation" (gag).
BTW - if you want anecdotal evidence of wins being a more reliable indicator, Sabathia had a K/BB ratio of under 2, which is about league average, his first year and won 17 games.
As far as I can tell, every one of the pitchers on your list won a lot of games. How does that make K/BB better?
You will note that you cite an example, ironically, that supports my very point. Yes, Sabathia won 17 games with a unimpressive K/BB ratio and low and behold, his numbers were down the next year! He went 13-11 instead and his K/BB ratio went from 171/95 to 149/88. Of course, Cleveland had a much better offense in 2001, but that also proves my point, as Sabathia's offense could make up for his league-average numbers to give him those vaunted 17 wins.
And, also, once again what trend changed to make Sabathia a Cy Young award winner and the current ace of the Brewers staff? You can see how K/BB correspond with the lowering of his ERA and an increase in success. Look at the trends in K/BB and ERA:
K/BB ERA
2001 1.80 4.39
2002 1.69 4.37
2003 2.14 3.60
2004 1.93 4.12
2005 2.60 4.03
2006 3.91 3.22
2007 5.65 3.21
2008 3.67 3.30
For reference, wins totals went 17, 13, 13, 11, 15, 12, 19, 10. Interesting, they do not correspond to changes in Sabathia's overall success as pitcher.
As far as I can tell, every one of the pitchers on your list won a lot of games. How does that make K/BB better?
Wins are a result of good pitching. It stands to reason that if a pitcher ends up with good K/BB ratios they are likely to end up with a high number of wins. Really, that just support what we're saying, which is that good K/BB ratios go hand in hand with run suppression and, thus, winning games. I don't know why you keep using wins as some sort of counterpoint.
Sabathia did win 17 games his rookie year. He was a 20-year-old with shaky control. He was able to offset the high number of walks by limiting hits and striking out a lot of people. Not that difficult to understand. K/BB ratio is not the be all end all, but it is certainly a very good measure and I think that's pretty well documented and perhaps even intuitively obvious.
my links didn't work.
just google:
"groundballs flyballs line drives hardball"
"never swat infield hardball"
"DIPS revisited"
"uncovering DIPS"
"Tom Tippett DIPS"
without the quotes and the links I tried to include will come up first.
RE: your comment about ratio and CC, look at the progression of his career. What CAUSED him to become dominant? What improved over time? K rate and BB rate. He didn't deserve 17 wins his first year, as evidenced by the next 3 seasons of very similar peripherals and very different W/L records. It wasn't until he his control improved dramatically and his K rate went from good to great that he became dominant.
The opposite of what I said about the 15:1 ratio holds true, as well. If I strike out 2/3s of the hitters I face and walk the other 1/3, I'd be ok and only have a 2 to 1 ratio, since most innings I'll strike out the side before I walk home a run and I'll very rarely walk home two before doing so. A huge K rate does wonders. FWIW, MLB average is about 2 to 1, but more importantly, about 8% BB and 16% Ks.
sorry to be redundant, nick. your reply wasn't up yet when i started typing.
he's been consistently racking up big pitch counts the way Baker did on Sunday.
Baker only threw 97 pitches Sunday.
rock solid statistical (real statistics, as in demonstrable correlations between numbers ) evidence that good K rates and BB rates correlate with run suppression and hence winning baseball.
Better than wins correlate with "winning baseball"? I know that is not what you are saying, but its not at all clear what you are saying. As I said above, I don't think anyone doubts that striking out batters and not walking them are good things for a pitcher.
But is walking 1 batter in five innings while striking out 5 and giving up 10 hits a better indicator of a pitcher's future than walking 1 while giving up 5 hits and only striking out 1? I doubt it.
Your made this claim:
"because there are a lot more young pitchers who fail badly after initial success in terms of wins over those who keep up great K/BB ratios."
Where is a source that says that? I don't see it on your list. Instead you have a bunch of links from the baseball simulation folks.
concedes there's really not THAT much non-knuckleball major league pitchers can do in the long term other than not walk people and strike people out.
You need to read the article again. Carefully. Then figure out what it really says. Which is that there are large and statistically significant differences between pitchers results on balls in play. And that the extreme end of the low scale seems to be populated by very successful junk-ballers. Exactly what observation would make you assume.
Tango Tiger's stuff is incomprehensible nonsense. He would take the average temperature in Minnesota and try to tell you what clothes you will need to wear to be comfortable, summer or winter.
It doesn't snow in April, the average temperature is above freezing!
But is walking 1 batter in five innings while striking out 5 and giving up 10 hits a better indicator of a pitcher's future than walking 1 while giving up 5 hits and only striking out 1? I doubt it.
Not a realistic scenario though. The fact of the matter is that it is almost impossible to maintain a low hit rate without a decent strikeout rate. Pitchers who can do this are exceedingly rare. The beauty of a strikeout is that it cannot turn into a hit, this isn't true of any type of ball in play. Ground balls find holes. Fly balls drop or land in the seats. There's no pitcher in the history of baseball who could force batters to hit the ball directly at fielders. This is one of my central issues with Livan Hernandez.
No, YOU need to read the article(s) again carefully. Read all of them. The WHOLE articles. Read the conclusions. Aside from junkballers, nobody with basic major league level stuff can suppress hits much. Look at the summary numbers. Look at Roger freaking Clemens. He struck out 1355 hitters more than the average guy. He yielded 173 less baserunners on walks. He yielded 138 less home runs than the average guy because (1) he struck people out before they had the chance to put the ball in play and (2) he got more than an average rate of groundballs on the balls in play he did give up. Yet he only suppressed 101 hits OVER HIS CAREER on balls in play vs. the average guy. Is that something? Yes. It's an extra 101 outs. Does it amount to jack compared to the other stuff? Come on now!
Look at the ACTUAL conclusions of the article rather than your interpretation:
1. Pitchers have more influence over in-play hit rates than McCracken suggested [which was virtually nil]. In fact, some pitchers (like Charlie Hough and Jamie Moyer) owe much of their careers to the ability to excel in this respect.
translation: restating "the kuckleballer exception", which every stat person acknowledges.
2. Their influence over in-play hit rates is WEAKER than their influence over walk and strikeout rates. The most successful pitchers in history have saved ONLY A FEW hits per season on balls in play, when compared with the league or team average....
(emphasis added)
3. The low correlation coefficients for in-play batting average suggest that there's a lot more room for random variation in these outcomes than in the defense-independent outcomes.....
Translation: Suppressing BABIP at the MLB level is not the highly repeatable skill K/BB GB/FB creation is, except for junkballers, once the set of pitchers you're talking about is guys with basic MLB-level talent.
4. Year-to-year variations in [BABIP]vs.-team BABIP can occur if the quality of a pitcher's teammates varies from year to year, even if that pitcher's performance is fairly consistent.
Translation: Guy pitches well and gets hosed sometimes. Guy pitches well and looks awesome sometimes. Because of RANDOM BABIP variation.
5. The fact that there's room for random variation doesn't necessarily mean a pitcher doesn't have any influence over the outcomes. It just means that his year-to-year performances can vary randomly around value other than zero, a value that reflects his skills.
Nobody said "any influence". Straw man.
6. Unusually good or bad in-play hit rates aren't likely to be repeated the next year. This has significant implications for projections of future performance.
7. Even if a pitcher has less influence on in-play averages than on walks and strikeouts, that doesn't necessarily mean that in-play outcomes are less important. Nearly three quarters of all plate appearances result in a ball being put in play. Because these plays are much more frequent, small differences in these in-play hit rates can have a bigger impact on scoring than larger differences in walk and strikeout rates.
Note: nobody argues that BABIP numbers aren't "important". They're hugely imporant in suppressing wins/creating runs. The point is just that they're largely outside the pitcher's control, especially compared to K rate, BB rate and GB creation.
If you didn't read "Uncovering DIPS" you might want to. It (just like me) allows that BABIP IS somewhat controllable, which you will like, but qualifies that and shows how looking at BB rate and K rate together is a better predictor of a guy's OBABIP than his current OBABIP, to the LIMITED extent that OBABIP is predictable. That is, the sort of dominance you get by wielding great control and striking guys out also accounts for most of the (limited) control a guy has over his OBA.
Thus: Roger Clemens.
Here's the relevant part if you don't want to bother
As you can see, the [year to year relational] coefficient for BABIP is highly significant, meaning that a pitcher’s control over the results of his balls in play extends beyond his fielding independent numbers. However, what is interesting is that is we look at the beta coefficients (which correct for the spread in each variable), we find that BABIP is just 25% of the pie. What that means is that batting average on balls in play is about as important in predicting itself as is just the pitcher’s strikeout rate or home run rate. That’s incredible! While each pitcher does have some control over his BABIP that is unique to him, his hit rate on balls in play is mostly as predictable without knowing his previous demonstrated ability to prevent hits on balls in play as it with it. Even given a minimum of 1,000 balls in play, 75% of a pitcher’s projected BABIP should be based on fielding independent statistics. That’s huge!
I'd just add that most of these don't say enough about the ability to induce popups, which is a skill almost as repeatable as K rate/BB rate/GB creation and one of the major ways BABIP is affected (since guys bat .000 on popups). Popup rate + K rate gives you a real impression of a guy's dominance.
Also: the comment about young pitchers and k ratio vs. wins was nick's, but I'm sure it's true. We showed you how your own example was poor: I mean, Sabathia pitched slightly better than .500 baseball with slightly better than average K and walk rates the next four years. He didn't go from 17 to 19 to 21 wins or even stay level. He didn't become dominant until his stuff was the sort of stuff that struck guys out all the time and until he could put his pitches where he wanted to all the time (and thereby walk fewer hitters).
Re: Livan.
His weak popup rate and inability to strike anybody out lead me to believe his sky high BABIP isn't flukey. He's now replacement player quality, pure and simple. In other words, tt, I DO agree that BABIP is a skill. It's just only refineable to a certain point called "major league quality", and beyond that it doesn't move much unless a player's peripherals are EXCELLENT, too. Livan is NOT throwing "major league quality" stuff and is fantastically lucky to have given up only 5 runs on TWELVE indians hits. Did you notice he also struck out a season high 6 batters while getting away with 12 hits? Not coincidental.
Baker only threw 97 pitches Sunday.
Over five innings. Which is roughly 20 per inning. Which is a lot.
Toby, thanks for the well researched analysis. Great stuff. The problem is that our pal TT will continue to downplay it and call it incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo while failing to produce any material evidence to support any of his claims. It's this type of unyielding and unsupported contrarianism that can make it difficult to debate with him, even though I think most of his opinions are based in reason.
Given given a minimum of 1,000 balls in play, 75% of a pitcher’s projected BABIP should be based on fielding independent statistics. That’s huge!
So pitchers who strike out a lot of batters, walk few and don't give up home runs tend to have better BABIP than pitchers who do the opposite. In fact once you know how they do in those departments, you are 75% of the way to determining their batting average on balls in play.
How does this show pitchers have little or no control over it? I thought FIP's were supposed to be 100% under the pitcher's control. So they have complete control over 75% and there isn't any reason to think they don't have control over the remaining 25% as well.
Most of us have always assumed that a pitcher who had control, struck out batters and didn't give up a lot of hard hit balls over the wall, also didn't give up a lot of hard hit balls in play. In fact, it was the claim that there was little or no difference between pitchers on balls in play that was shocking. This confirms that was complete nonsense.
Its only "huge" for people who are trying to do a statistical simulation of baseball. For people interested in the real game, it just confirms the obvious.
You will note that you cite an example, ironically, that supports my very point.
Well no it doesn't. Your claim was that K/BB was a better predictor of future success than wins. Not that it correlated to current success. Sabathia had a lot of wins, a below average K/BB ratio and a great future.
Sabathia's low K/BB ratio was largely a result of his being wild and, when a pitcher reduces the number of walks they give up, they generally improve. In fact, Sabathia's success despite his walks was a very good reason to see a potential bright future.
As I said, no one doubts that walks and strikeouts are important factors in pitcher's success or that walks are bad and strikeouts good. But if a pitcher is giving up a lot of hits, a great K/BB ratio is not going to save him. And if he is successful, there is not a lot of reason to think that success won't continue.
The fact of the matter is that it is almost impossible to maintain a low hit rate without a decent strikeout rate.
I think you misunderstand the issue. You are unlikely to get many strikeouts if batters are hammering the ball all over the field. And if a pitcher puts the ball over the plate and hitters have a hard time making good contact and keep fouling off pitches, eventually some of them are going to miss or take a called strike.
One of the reason sinker ball pitchers tend to have lower strikeout rates is that when a guy misses they tend to hit a ground ball in fair play, instead of fouling it back. So strikeout rates aren't just a function of "missing bats", but what happens when they don't.
I'm not sure you realize this, but you are still proving my point. As the other Nick already pointed out, yes he was having some success despite his low K/BB ratio, but that "success" was being basically around league average (ERA +s of 102 in 2001, 100 in 2002, 106 in 2004, and 104 in 2005; the only exception was a year in 2003 in which his K/BB took a jump to 2.14 and it jump in 2005 when his stats began heading from league average overall to ace status). His separation many years was his strikeouts, but even those weren't terribly high outside of his rookie year until his K/BB and thus control really started to improve.
You are saying his control improved and he had good stuff before that kept him close to league average in ERA and let him win. Yes that is the point. Once his control improved, he starting striking out more, and the K/BB ratio improved, pointing to improving stats in the future (which has happened) and sustainable success. (Which has also happened) So, really, I am not sure what your point is. As far as I can tell, without really saying it, you have admitted that me, as well as others who have posted here, are correct in our basic assessment.
that "success" was being basically around league average
The comparison point was to wins and a 17-5 record is not "around league average". His K/BB ratio was below league average in 2001. His K/BB did not predict he had a Cy Young in his future, his W/L record did.
Yes that is the point. Once his control improved, he starting striking out more,
If that is the point, it isn't true. Sabathia struck out 171 batters in 2001. He has matched that total only twice since and never again struck out as high a percentage of the batters he faced, even in his Cy Young year. His K/BB ratio improved because he stopped walking as many batters.
When again did he go past that? Oh yes of course 2006 and last year, when he had phenomenal K/BB ratios. And he's on pace for a lot more than 171 this year and once again has a great K/BB ratio. And I mentioned specifically that the comment admitted he had lots of strikeouts his rookie year. And you must not have read correctly, beacuse the entire point is that his W/L record predicted absolutely nothing but his poor K/BB ratio did, as it took a while for true sucess. Did you see the chart of wins and ERA I showed? Clearly, what you said is not the case.
Did you see the chart of wins and ERA I showed?
No. I saw a chart of K/9 and ERA which clearly showed Sabathia had a below average K/9 three of his first four years in the league. How did those K/9 predict he was a future Cy Young award winner - after the fact?
Again, no one doubts that not walking batters is a good thing and will make someone a better pitcher. That is true whether someone strikes out more batters or not. In fact all K/9 seems to have done is confuse you about what really changed for Sabathia. It wasn't that he was striking out a lot more batters, it was that he was walking fewer.
I feel that I have to remind people - here is the original statement from the article:
"B/KK ratio is the most impressive statistic for a young pitcher, as it bodes very well for his future."
I asked "where is the evidence for this". Now, apparently Sabathia is, despite his below average "B/KK" ratios early in his career. Perhaps I am confused, but I don't think so. It looks to me like people have a conclusion and are trying to twist whatever evidence there is to fit it.
Post a Comment