Brewer Pitch Effectiveness, or who should throw what pitches and when
Most of our readers are are familiar with the concept of linear weights for evaluating pitchers and hitters. The basic concept is, say if a batter hits a double or a pitcher gives up a double, there is an average runs gained for the team by that double-- if it's a leadoff double, a 2 out double, or a bases-loaded double. On the other side, a strikeout always reduces the average amount of runs scored. If you add up all the events, give them each a run value compared to average and divide them by the number of chances, you wind up with a number of runs contributed by the player to the team above or below average.
Fangraphs has unveiled a new feature that takes evaluating pitchers to a new level-- pitch type linear weights. The method is to determine the run expectancy of an inning before a pitch is thrown, and then find the run expectancy of the inning after the pitch is thrown. Then all of the changes in run values get added up to create one super cumulative total for runs above or below average. So when Manny Parra gives up a home run on a splitter, he gets dropped whatever the average home run was worth minus what was expected to be scored before the pitch was thrown. When Manny strikes someone out with a splitter, he gets a few tenths of a run added on. And finally, keep in mind that these are context-neutral but not luck adjusted like tRA-- a groundball double down the line is the same as a booming double to a gap. This is also not just a measure of stuff, but of control-- a strike reduces expected runs, and a ball adds expected runs. Every pitch is taken into account-- ball, strike, hit, homer, out, whatever it is.
So enough with the methodology, let us see if there is any interesting trends to be found with Brewers pitchers. Are there any pitches that should be thrown more or less?
I'll start out with Manny Parra, everybody's favorite intellectual. I wrote a short story about Parra's fastball and why, at that point, I felt he should throw his fastball less and breaking pitches more. The numbers tend to back that idea up, as for some reason Parra's fastball is not as effective as his off-speed pitches. Last year on fastballs, Parra was -1.55 runs/100 fastballs, and this year he is -1.48/100 fastballs. It is important to note that fastballs will generally be below average because they are the most frequently thrown ("establish the fastball"), so when compared to breaking balls, they will come out worse. But Parra's fastball is quite unproductive.
Parra's rates for his slider (which he does not throw very often, only about 1-2% of the time), his curve, and his splitter have remained about the same. The curve has been about average both years, and the slider and splitter slightly above average. The change from this year to last has been the increased hittability of his changeup-- +9 runs cumulatively last season, and already -5 this year. That corresponds with Manny flipping the frequency of the curve and the change-- he threw the curve 17% of the time in 08 compared to 13% in 09, and he's thrown the change 20% of the time this year compared to 13% last season. The team has stressed that Manny is throwing his changeup more, but maybe it's time to go back to switching out some changes for curves again. We can only hope that would make the changeup more effective. But the good news for Manny is that the pitches except for the change haven't drastically changed effectiveness, so even though his FIP has jumped nearly a full run to 5, his stuff is good enough to get back to where he was if the change becomes effective again.
I'll move on to Dave Bush now, who should make another interesting case because of all the tampering he does with his repitoire. Dave's fastball has fluctuated; he was about -1 runs/100 pitches with his fastball in 07, +1 runs/100 pitches in 08, and he's sitting on an average fastball right now. That's probably just fluctuation that we can't draw too many conclusions from. Bush has a pretty solid repitoire of fastball, slider, cutter, curve, and change right now and he's mixing them all very well and throwing his straight or two seam fastball less than 50% of the time. This year, three pitches have resulted in about average (or the same run expectency before and after the pitch). The changeup has gotten hit hard, and the cutter has been his most effective pitch. I don't see anything in particular that I would suggest that Bush change.
Meanwhile, Yovani Gallardo is really good. All four of his pitches cumulatively have saved the Brewers runs this year. His best pitch this year on average has been the changeup, saving 2.94 (!) runs per 100 pitches, and he's throwing it more than it has before. His fastball, curveball, and slider have all saved 1 run for every 100 pitches.
Jeff Suppan, on the other hand... the Brewers lose run expectancy with every pitch except the changeup (surprising, because I detailed how the 3mph gap between fastball and change was not nearly enough earlier this year). His fastball comes in at a near-Parra -1.35/ 100 pitches, his curve is at -1.5/ 100 pitches, and the slider is -.5/100. The change adds 1.5 runs per 100, though I would not be surprised if some changeups are classified as fastballs in the fangraphs algorithm. I made a suggestion for Parra, and I will make one for Suppan as well: retirement. Well, that's an exxageration of course, but he has to mix his pitches more and locate better to have success in the future, because the defense isn't going to be help him out as much the rest of the way.
Braden Looper has thrown fastballs, splitters, and sliders with the Brewers. 30% of his pitches are splitters, and it's a good thing-- he's +2.42/100 pitches with the split and about -1.5/100 with both the fastball and slider. Nothing shocking there, though I hope Looper starts to pitch better soon-- he's been the beneficiary of luck and defense as much as Suppan has, posting a very high home run allowed rate and walking a full batter more per nine innings that he did a year ago on the way to a 5.62 FIP, over a run beyond most projections. We'll hope he gets stronger with the fastball and slider as the year goes on. Both pitches were much better the bast two years, very close to average.
Finally, a few highlights from the bullpen:
Hoffman's fastball and slider take about 3 runs from the opponents expectation every 100 pitches, and his changeup is only at, oh, +7. Not to bad for the old guy.
Mark DiFelice's cutter gives us about +2.5 runs. It's an awfully good pitch, especially when you consider that he throws it more than 80% of the time.
All four of Carlos Villanueva's pitches are above average. He is a rare (and really good) type of a reliever. He's striking out 9 per 9 out of the pen the last two years.
Todd Coffey's slider: +4 per 100 pitches, best of his career, and his fastball has jumped from -1 to +1 per 100 pitches. He's found something with that pitch.
Mitch Stetter's slider is filthy. He throws it 60% of the time or more and it adds +2.5 runs per 100 pitches to the Brewers chances.
Well now wasn't that fun, and soon, we can do the reverse and look at the Brewer hitters against types of pitches. If you have any questions on the stat and methodology, do not be afraid to ask.
2 recs |
30 comments
|
Comments
Wow
Thanks again for this kind of analysis. This is so much better to read than the old “Gallardo is good Suppan sucks” that can be found so many other places.
by Junked on Jun 8, 2009 2:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This is excellent
This is probably my favorite pitching article you’ve posted.
So is the league average at 0 / 100 pitches for each pitch or are there league average pitches available?
How do these pitch type linear weights work out over the course of the season? Does it agree with other Runs Over Replacement type of measures over the course of a season for any given pitcher? It’s a great statistic, but it seems really complicated and it’s not entirely obvious to me how it would stack up over the long-run.
e.g., a pitcher throws 1000 fastballs at -1.25 / 100 → -12.5 runs over the season
he also throws 800 curves at .5 / 100 (4 for season) and 200 changes at 1.5 / 100 (3 season) for a total of -5.5 for the season. How does that -5.5 compare to his overall performance?
by ecocd on Jun 8, 2009 2:59 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
0 is the amount of expected runs in the initial situation, or the average amount scored per situation
It’s a very new statistic, so we don’t have whole lot of reference for good and bad, that will take a while. I used the rate states to compare to past years, but all of the cumulative numbers are available at fangraphs.
If you add up all of the cumulative pitches, you get a rough “runs above average”, because the expected runs in the inning is really the average amount of runs given up in an inning— so given up compared to average is runs above average. I don’t think you can compare a pitch to replacement level exactly (you’d have to set the replacement level for each pitch)… to do that, you have to look at the total picture and then what you’re doing is a linear weights version of what fangraphs does at the bottom of pitcher players for value— they use FIP and then multiply runs per inning saved above replacement level by innings pitched to get total runs saved. All told, it’s maybe not so much of an evaluation tool as a scouting-type tool— if a pitcher is getting rocked on one pitch, maybe they should stop throwing it (or throw it more if they are doing well with it. It will be better once we have more experience using it, and we know what is really good and really bad. Based on what I’ve seen, (all per 100) +2 is good, -2 is bad, +7 is abnormally fantastic.
The thread announcing the stat is right here, and here’s a nice and basic explanation to put it a different way. And finally, you can play around with the leaderboards to get a frame of reference for good and bad pitches. It would be handy to be able to sort by pitches thrown instead of IP— for example, if you throw one highly effective changeup in 30 innings, you get the lead in the changeup category/100 pitches.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 8, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sweet
I was just going to ask if there was a leaderboard of some type.
nice post!
by hamburgular17 on Jun 8, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent stuff as always!
Is there any information on how large the sample size per pitch type needs to be to have reasonably meaningful results? Having looked up DiFelice just now and his ~50 non-cutter pitches (out of 330 total), the run values based on that obviously aren’t very trustworthy, but I have absolutely no idea how many it would take…
by Zeyes on Jun 8, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what's fun about these new stats
we really have no idea. I wouldn’t look at DiFelice’s totals as an indication of his skill with those pitches (you might be stretched to even say that an entire year’s worth of data was reflective of skill. I doubt Dave Bush changed his fastball so much from the last three years). But it’s just like looking at stats from this part of the year— it tells us what has happened so far, so we can look at and see if there’s a difference in effectiveness from year to year. We’d have to know when the numbers would stabilize.
As I’ve said, maybe this isn’t a skill stat, but it definitely is a way to break down a much larger concept like overall effectiveness.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 8, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nicely done
I too really enjoyed this piece and thought it was a perfectly done “statistical scouting” type of analysis using the new Pitch Type Values.
by dkappelman on Jun 8, 2009 3:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks!
It’s awesome that we can have these types of tools available. We appreciate all the hard work.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 8, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ditto, the appreciate all the hard work comment. david, fangraphs is the best website on the internets.
jordan, awesome article. love it. tiny quibble:
It is important to note that fastballs will generally be below average because they are the most frequently thrown (“establish the fastball”), so when compared to breaking balls, they will come out worse. But Parra’s fastball is quite unproductive.
This seems to be the wrong explanation as to why fastballs will generally be below average. am i missing something?
thanks again.
Bring Back The Old Logo!
by jacob on Jun 8, 2009 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe that's not the right way to explain it
you’re comparing all pitches to one average. I don’t know any specific numbers, but the league overall hits better against a fastball than any breaking pitch— probably because pitchers throw fastballs about 60% of the time and they have less break, and they throw them earlier in the count (or 3-1, 3-0), and they have to establish it to fool batters with breaking pitches. Here’s an article that shows fastball babip allowed is higher than breaking balls. So the basic idea is that fastballs are placed at a disadvantage.
It wouldn’t be a change to the stat, but I think it would be interesting to compare fastballs to fastballs with a ERA+ or OPS+ type stat. If you averaged out all the fastballs, curves, changes, and sliders for every pitcher in this pitch type linear weights stat, I’d imagine that fastballs would come out in the negatives on runs allowed, and the breaking pitches above average. I have no proof to back that up, though, but I’m pretty confident that would be the case. Someone can make fun of me if I’m wrong.
The reason I put in that line was to point out that a 0 fastball and a 0 curveball are probably not as good as each other, you could make an argument that a 0 fastball is better compared to other pitchers.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 8, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Slightly different interpretation...
Maybe the perceived overall disadvantage of the fastball isn’t because it’s thrown so often but because it’s thrown by (nearly) everyone? Good or bad pitchers, almost everybody features a fastball at least some of the time, while the other pitch types are presumably thrown primarily by those pitchers who are more effective with them than they’d be with other pitches.
by Zeyes on Jun 9, 2009 3:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This makes sense too
either way, I’d like to see an overall average per pitch. It’d make a great study.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 9, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I expect your computer to explode
When you try to run the numbers on Corey Hart and sliders.
by Cheeseandcorn on Jun 8, 2009 7:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Haha
He’s -3.3, which puts him in the bottom 20. Justin Upton is -4.7 on sliders and 18.8 (!!!); guess we know how to pitch him. David Ortiz is -10.7 on fastballs, which is a great indicator of his toastiness.
"I didn't realize his velocity was that high," said Macha, noting that radar readings aren't flashed during exhibition games.
by battlekow on Jun 8, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Er, that's 18.8 on fastballs for Upton.
"I didn't realize his velocity was that high," said Macha, noting that radar readings aren't flashed during exhibition games.
by battlekow on Jun 9, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does luck affect this?
You’ve mentioned Manny Parra having a really high BABIP. If more hits are falling than expected, won’t that skew the value of each pitch?
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
by TheJay on Jun 8, 2009 8:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
A single is a single, and a double is a double— regardless if it’s a bloop or a smash. Yes, it would skew the value— but it does tell you that for some reason, the change is getting hit harder than the other two breaking pitches— I guess it could just be a coincidence but if we assume everything’s a coincidence we get nowhere.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 9, 2009 8:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting...but...
Interesting stuff, but if you don’t have the context of each pitch, it loses much of its usefullness.
In other words, if a pitcher only throws his slider in very favorable counts, it is going to artificially inflate its effectiveness due to the hitter being defensive or having to expand his strikezone.
Fastball data may be skewed by having to groove a strike when you down 3-1 in the count.
Like I said, I enjoyed the data, but without more supporting data, I don’t think you can draw all of the conclusions that you drew.
a 2-0 fastball being compared to an 0-2 slider is not really a “fair fight”.
by badgermaniac on Jun 9, 2009 12:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
EDIT
I see you did address some of these issues in a reply a few spots above mine.
by badgermaniac on Jun 9, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why I tried to avoid comparing pitches to each other and saying a slider is better than a fastball
I focused more on year to year with the same pitch.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 9, 2009 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you look at the leaderboards,
the best fastballs are in the high threes (Chris Carpenter’s is 3.78). The best sliders are in the 20s, with Doug Davis’ (?!) slider coming in at 26.08!
by MillerParkSouth on Jun 9, 2009 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like Davis has only thrown one slider all year :)
by Zeyes on Jun 9, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the problem with leaderboards
You need a pitch cutoff instead of an inning cutoff. A strike with 1 slider all year would give like a 20 number / 100 pitches, but if you could make the pitcher throw at least 100 sliders, you could get somewhere. I think the range is about -3 to 3, with outliers like Hoffman’s change.
Scored three times and detonated an indisputable in four visits to the batting box.
by Jordan M on Jun 9, 2009 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gameday has this same problem
It thinks Mitch Stetter’s out pitch is a cutter because it misclassified his slider as one once and he got an out on it.
"I didn't realize his velocity was that high," said Macha, noting that radar readings aren't flashed during exhibition games.
by battlekow on Jun 9, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the methodology for this metric takes care of this problem.
A 2-0 fastball is compared to outcomes for all other 2-0 pitches, and and 0-2 slider is compared to outcomes for 0-2 pitches. From your comment below, you may have already realized this, but I wanted to make sure that anybody else reading the thread who may have the same objection realizes how this problem is handled.
Jordan already posted the link, but if you’re curious about the methodology, go here:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/pitch-type-linear-weights-explained
by Br@wndo on Jun 9, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm curious how a Catcher would feel about this tool.
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, ""That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Jun 9, 2009 9:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Parra's decrease in change-up effectiveness could be due to advance scouting.
Not that I’d rule out dumb variance at this stage, but if you track the number of change-ups Parra has thrown each season, it’s not out of the question that a lot of teams were maybe not expecting it last year:
07 – 3.7%
08 – 12.9%
09 – 21.0%
At the bottom of the PitchFX tab on the individual player pages at fangraphs, they also have a line graph showing the percentage of pitches thrown in each start the last three years. As the 08 season went on, there is a pretty clear trend of Parra throwing fewer curves and more changes.
The change was his most effective pitch last year. This year, it has been his least effective off-speed offering. Like I said, could be dumb luck, or it could be that a lot of these hitters have seen his change now, or at least know enough to know it’s coming. He might have been ambushing them a bit with it last year.
by Br@wndo on Jun 9, 2009 3:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 

























