Luckiest Pitchers from 2010
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
According to research from Voros McCracken, published a few years ago by Baseball Prospectus, pitchers can control three things:
1. SOs
2. HRs allowed
3. Walks allowed
Once the ball is in play, the result is close to random. I know, it's counter-intuitive, but no one has been able to disprove it.
Anyway, according to this research the two luckiest pitchers (Min 160 innings) in MLB last year were Trevor Cahill and Bronson Arroyo. Batters hit .224 against Cahill and .232 against Arroyo on balls in play that stayed in the park. The ML average is historically around .300. Both pitchers had ERAs that were considerably lower based than one would expect based on the peripheral stats. Both are candidates to have much higher ERAs in 2011, based on nothing more than moving toward the norm on Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP).
Add Clay Buckholz to the list of lucky pitchers for 2010. His ERA was 2.33, but projects to 3.80 with an average BABIP.
The unluckiest pitcher last year was James Shields. Batters hit .334 against him on BABIP.
I went back to look at 2009. BABIP predicted that Lowe and Pavano would do much better in 2010 (they did), and that J.A. Happ would do much worse (he did). OTOH, it predicted that Arroyo would do worse, and his ERA was virtually the same.
1. SOs
2. HRs allowed
3. Walks allowed
Once the ball is in play, the result is close to random. I know, it's counter-intuitive, but no one has been able to disprove it.
Anyway, according to this research the two luckiest pitchers (Min 160 innings) in MLB last year were Trevor Cahill and Bronson Arroyo. Batters hit .224 against Cahill and .232 against Arroyo on balls in play that stayed in the park. The ML average is historically around .300. Both pitchers had ERAs that were considerably lower based than one would expect based on the peripheral stats. Both are candidates to have much higher ERAs in 2011, based on nothing more than moving toward the norm on Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP).
Add Clay Buckholz to the list of lucky pitchers for 2010. His ERA was 2.33, but projects to 3.80 with an average BABIP.
The unluckiest pitcher last year was James Shields. Batters hit .334 against him on BABIP.
I went back to look at 2009. BABIP predicted that Lowe and Pavano would do much better in 2010 (they did), and that J.A. Happ would do much worse (he did). OTOH, it predicted that Arroyo would do worse, and his ERA was virtually the same.
0
Comments
<< <i>I really believe that pitchers control a lot of what gets hit. Certain pitchers make you knock everything into the ground, while others allow a lot of fly balls. If a ball doesn't get out of the infield, the chances of that ball being a hit are way lower than a ball that hits out into the outfield. Not a lot of luck in that. >>
Where is your analysis? McCracken had actual facts in his study.
A natural extension would be to analyze their opponents slugging percentage to see if that ends up being a skill like preventing HRs, or if ends up being random like opponents BA.
<< <i>Shields just wasnt unlucky; he had some truly awful games; watched him pitch against the Sox nearly every time they played, was not the same guy as in previous years. Bucholz has the stuff to be a true ace as does Cahill. Arroyo is up and down most years and has often defied the odds and his predictors. All the numbers and analysis dont mean squat till you play the game. >>
More deep thinking. Why do research when we have such wise men among us who have no need for facts?
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Some pitchers consistently have a BAbip significantly below league average. Does that mean that they're just inexplicably lucky every year? >>
Who are these pitchers? The finding of McCracken's study was that the pitchers were not consistently high or low. If you have evidence to the contrary, you might be able dispute his argument. To date, no one has been able to do so.
<< <i>It would depend on your definition of high or low. Not all pitchers wind up their careers with exact BABIPs of .300. If someone comes in at .290, or .280, is that sufficiently low enough? Even when they do, I imagine it's mostly, though not all, due to the ballpark factors. If you need examples, I'm sure I can provide but rest assured, I want o understand the parameters before I even bother. >>
See:
http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201101/sabermetrician-exile#
Also Baseball Prospectus is a good site for info, but it is a pay site. The exact BABIP is not the issue, but the fact that it is random. Doing well (or poorly) one year is in no way indicative that the picher will do the same the next year.
<< <i>Who are these pitchers? The finding of McCracken's study was that the pitchers were not consistently high or low. If you have evidence to the contrary, you might be able dispute his argument. To date, no one has been able to do so. >>
The guy who came to my mind is SF's Matt Cain. Over his 6 year career so far (1095.2 ip), he's averaged a career BAbip of .270 vs the League average of .299. Splitting up his home vs away BAbip you get .259 and .283, both still below the League's BAbip of .299.
On a larger scale, Tom Seaver had a career .262 BAbip vs the League's .281 during his career, with home/away a more even .260 and .264.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Pretty much every analysis has actual facts. Saberman made a nice analysis awhile back picking and choosing facts that concluded that Dave Kingman was a better player than Honus Wagner. I am saying, that having watched baseball for 40 years, I have seen that certain guys give up fly balls and others give up grounders. This does not take deep analysis. I can look at Catfish Hunter's huge number of home runs given up and can guess that he gave up more fly balls per nine innings than a guy like Lefty Grove, who rarely gave them up. Is it not unreasonable to think that if Grove and Hunter are in the same situations, that Grove will get more double plays than Hunter? I might be wrong. I certainly think that yes, pitchers do control the HR's, K's, and walks. But there are a lot of pitchers that let the ball get hit because they know that they have capable fielders behind them that will make the plays.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>digicat, Just out of curiosity how are you comparing a career BABIP for a given pitcher versus league. Is this some advanced feature in Baseball Reference that I'm unaware of? Thanks. >>
When you go to a player's profile on Baseball Reference, click on "More Stats" next to "Standard Pitching." Scroll down the page to "Batting Against -- Pitching" and down with the totals, you'll see "MLB Averages." That's where I'm pulling the League BAbip number from.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>Cool! Thanks for the tip. That site has gone so exponentially haywire (in a good way) that it's hard to keep up. >>
It's like an all-you-can-eat buffet!
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
as for Matt Cain, he actually shows up in the yearly "luckiest pitcher" argument given that his expected ERA is routinely drastically higher than his actual outcome. A lot of his success in "defying" the expected FIP/xFIP/DIPs etc lies in his outrageously low HR/Fly Ball rate...which is at 7.0 (career) (he had an unsustainably low 3.2% in the first half last season) when the ML average is near 11%. More than a few analysts have tried to comprehend his success in that category...more than just pitching in an extreme pitcher's park given his below average GB rate of 36% and average strand rates (75%). So it's not like he's getting hitters to beat it into the ground repeatedly or really doing anything outstanding to lead to stranding baserunners. He's merely converting his flyouts into outs over most any other pitcher. Whether you want to attribute that to luck, home ballpark, or skill, I guess it's up to others to decide. I do know Cain has a career home ERA of 3.19 with a 4.47 xFIP and a career road ERA of 3.76 with a 4.39 xFIP...so in that sense, PacBell/SBC/AT&T Park has been very good to Cain.
There is no question that pitchers get lucky/unlucky, and finding those guys via different predicitive indicators goes a long way in avoiding a mistake in MLB...or for most fans purpose, in fantasy baseball.
It isn't just statstical evaluation...logic supports it as well. As a pitcher, I always noticed when the squib hit got through, and felt unlucky at that moment. THat stuff happens all the time.
I recall Maddux commenting on that when a reporter asked him if he pitched bad today, or if he felt like he didnt have his best stuff because he gave up 10 hits in the game...and he responded something to the effect that he pitched exactly as good as the previous game where he gave up four hits...it was just that those balls just happened to find the gloves instead of the holes.
Pitchers have very little control over batted balls in play. Their tenedencies do have an effect if there are more ground balls or more fly balls...but once the ball is in play in the air or on the ground, their effect is basically gone.
The things they do control are the BB/K/HR allowed.
There are some guys who have shown to be yearly better on giving up less hits on balls in play, but that may not necessarily be attriubuted to their doing, perhaps something else. But they may also have a hand in it too. For the most part though, it is pretty random.
As for Bucholz, unless he has a change in ability towards his favor, the chances of him keeping an ERA close to 2.30 is pretty slim. If you are picking him via a fantasy league, I would expect a full run change not in his favor in his ERA.
Here are his previous stats prior to last year, and then last year's below it...
IP 190, H 198, BB 87, K 162, ERA 4.91
IP 173, H 120, BB 67, K 120, ERA 2.33
One may look at the small drop in strikeout rate and conclude that he decided to 'pitch' to contact, rather than be a thrower, thus relying on his fielders and giving up much less hits, and conclude that it was not luck at all.
But, if he were pitching to contact, then why did his control(via walk rate), get worse? The hit rate is going to climb back up.
The guy is relatively young for a pitcher, and if he throws 185 innings this year, I would expect hit hits to be around 180-190 as well. It would be a shock if he was coming in close to 50 less hits per inning again. He could get lucky again
That ERA is fools gold. The dude could get lucky again, or he could have an improvement in ability because he is young and improving...keeping that in mind, I don't think it will climb all the way back to the 5.00 range. A safe bet would be an over/under around 3.68, which is a little lower than his 2009 season(in which his ratios were almost identical to 2010, except for HR allowed).
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>So, do park factors (like field dimensions) get lumped in with "luck" then? >>
That would seem to be the case.
it's one of the factors, yes. Not an overriding factor, as if you look, Ubaldo Jimenez could also be found on any "luckiest pitcher" list at least for the first half of 2010 due to a similarly unsustainable - well below average HR/FB rate (4.2%) along with a .232 BABIP...and of course he pitches in a hitter's haven. In addition, Mitch Kramer-Lincecum has posted a much better career ground ball rate (45% to Cain's 36%), but posted a good, but not great, 9.9% HR/FB rate in 2010 in the same yard...so.... In Cain's case, he's had 5 years of keeping his HR/FB rate well below average, so given his sample size, one would lead you to believe that his home park coupled with some unquantifiable skill to keep flyballs from being crushed - whatever it is, perhaps routinely keeping hitters off balance by constantly pitching inside, or his seemingly late cutting action on his fastball or whatever it is. As you can see by the PitchFX link I posted in my previous post, Cain is more of a flyball pitcher with little to no sink on his arsenal of pitches...so it's really difficult to quantify why exactly he's had so much success suppressing HRs. The simplest conclusion given the sample size, is part skill, part home ballpark.
They care in a round about way. However, it isn't their job to care or assess themselves. It is their job to do the best they can with their god given ability. It is up to others to judge...and from this judgement comes salaries, starting jobs, and their place in MLB history.