Pitchers Who are Nasty and Hittable
by Jordan M on Aug 23, 2010 7:53 PM CDT
Email
PrintI wanted to look this up for myself so I figured I'd share the results in a fanpost. I don't really know what the relevance is, but the thought occurred to me today that I often use strikeout percentage or swinging strike percentage to determine how nasty a pitcher's stuff is. And it would naturally seem to me that pitchers with nastier stuff would be tougher to get base hits off of on balls put in play.
So I went to a query in Play Index that TheJay ran for me a while back. Here's the list, it's the highest career BABIP allowed by a pitcher with a minimum of 100 innings since 1954. I wanted to sort them by the highest K rates. Parra is notable because he is 16th on the list, and has the most career innings of any pitcher in the top 50.
I had to do it manually because I can't export the query to Numbers.
Jepsen, 8.9 K/9
Connollly, 8.2 K/9
Parra, 8.1 K/9
Mock, 8 K/9
Paulino, 8 K/9
Parnell, 7.8 K/9
The list drops to 6.5 after Parnell.
Jepsen is a current reliever with the Angels who has put up a pretty good season this year, with a strikeout rate over 10 per 9. Connolly pitched in the 60s, bouncing between starting and relieving. In his career his walk rate was quite a bit higher than even Manny Parra's, probably explaining why he was out of the majors midway through his second year. Jepsen had 102 innings at the time of the query and Connolly amassed 130 in his career.
Manny Parra is a weird creature. I'm not going to try to conclude anything from this, but it's something to think about. Maybe part of why I defend him so much is because of this strange combination of skills: great stuff, tons of strikeouts, poor control, and extremely hittable. There's no pitcher in baseball that has ever been like him, as far as I can tell. But fortunately, his career is not over, and hopefully things start to change and the BABIP evens out and he becomes a solid starting pitcher.
98 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
plus splitter, good curveball, decent changeup
and an AWFUL fasball
by ilikeburritos on Aug 24, 2010 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions
plus splitter, good curveball, decent changeup
and an AWFUL fasball
by ilikeburritos on Aug 24, 2010 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions
It's not just that the fastball is awful
It’s that he frequently backs himself into positions where he has to give in with it.
Now that's great tasting chicken!
could be that
but whenever he throws his fastballs he gets shelled
by ilikeburritos on Aug 24, 2010 7:40 AM CDT up reply actions
At FanGraphs
I was looking at Manny’s numbers and all of his pitches are negative – and yeah, he has one of the worst fastballs – except the split-finger fastball. There’s only a handful of guys who have over 100 innings and throw it, and he’s been the most productive with it (although on a per-pitch basis, Ubaldo Jimenez has been more effective with it).
So is this the story of a guy who throws hard with very little control and has one trick pitch?
I was about to write
that perhaps Manny should eliminate a couple of pitches from his repertoire — say, his curveball and changeup — and focus on the ones he throws well, but you’re not going to get very far if you’re a fastball / splitter pitcher and your fastball is that bad.
SRS BSNS
IIRC...
… Sabathia said Parra should eliminate a couple of pitches and that he’d dominate if he did so. Of course, that was before the last two seasons.
Like I needed another reason to hate diabetes.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 24, 2010 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions
maybe he should limit his 4-seam fastballs
and learn and throw 2-seam fastballs
by ilikeburritos on Aug 24, 2010 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions
it's possible
seeing as the 2 seam is a better pitch for him. but then again, with additional exposure to the 2 seam and the absence of the 4 seam, hitters might learn to crush the 2 seam from him.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 9:22 PM CDT up reply actions
the 2-seam moves better than a 4-seam
and more movement means less solid hits
by ilikeburritos on Aug 25, 2010 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree in theory
But as referenced below Parra’s line drive percentage is not out of the ordinary. – He doesn’t seem to get hit harder (defined by type of ball hit) than any other pitcher.
I would be curious to know what % of his home runs come off fastballs (not really a question for you, more a general comment)
by BrewCrewBrian on Aug 25, 2010 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions
if his ISO is low as claimed elsewhere
I don’t think it matters. I guess people just seem to hit a lot of grounder hits off of him?
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 25, 2010 10:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Not sure if I'm looking at this wrong
but FanGraphs has his fastball as terrible (-25 runs this year/-2.35 runs per 100 fastballs thrown), but his only other negative pitch is the curveball at -1.3 and -0.4. Unfortunately, these are also his two most used pitches, making up 73% of his total pitches. This year his slider and change are slightly above average (although he rarely throws either) and his splitter is excellent.
Here’s the FanGraphs link: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4279&position=P#pitchtype
Maybe those other pitches are more successful because he throws them less often?
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
Thats a definite possibility
I was mostly pointing out that his other pitches are not negative in value.
Fangraphs had an article ( link) about James Shields that talked about pitch sequencing a little bit. Part of the explanation might be that he is throwing similar sequence of pitches over and over and guys know they can sit on the payoff pitch, which is often the fastball or curveball.
The other thought I had was: what is the risk of throwing the other pitches more often? It would be awfully tough for them to get hit harder than what he’s throwing now, might as well find out if they can be effective in larger doses. I would hate for him to not use pitches that can get major league hitters out consistently because he feels he has to throw his fastball.
I think part of the problem is that he cannot throw those other pitches for strikes consistently
which means that when he gets behind in the count, he turns to one of the two that he’s comfortable with… the fastball or the curveball.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
If he can never get those other pitches across for strikes, would their pitch values be negative (I don’t know)? Either way, he can’t throw any or his pitches for strikes. I looked through his PitchFx data at FanGraphs, and he is all over the place.
This is his July 24 start against the Nationals (6IP, 4H, 3BB, 4K, 2ER): http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxg.aspx?playerid=4279&position=P&season=2010&date=2010-07-24&dh=0
This is his June 6 start against the Cardinals (5.1IP, 4H, 4BB, 10K, 2ER, 2HR): http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxg.aspx?playerid=4279&position=P&season=2010&date=2010-06-06&dh=0
This is his June 18 start against the Rockies (5.1IP, 10H, 2BB, 4K, 10ER): http://www.fangraphs.com/pitchfxg.aspx?playerid=4279&position=P&season=2010&date=2010-06-18&dh=0
These are 2 quality outings and one implosion. He gave up 5 in the 3rd of the June 18 start against the Rockies, so it wasn’t just him being left in too long.
A couple things I noticed: in his July 24 start against the Nationals, a good start based on his results, he had zero ability to throw strikes consistently with any of his pitches and was all over the place. He is much better with his command in the other 2 starts, especially the June 6 start, but gets shelled against the Rockies anyways. 1 thing he didn’t do against the Rockies was throw a BP fastball, however. All of his fastballs (over all 3 starts, really) have good vertical movement, and most have some horizontal movement as well. There were only 2 fastballs that didn’t have good horizontal movement, and they still broke a little bit (plus had good vertical movement).
Part of the problem is that his curveball didn’t have much horizontal movement against the Rockies as opposed to the start against the Cardinals when the curve had a lot of horizontal and vertical movement.
Just for kicks, here’s a Cliff Lee start ()
And a Roy Halladay perfecto ()
PitchFx graphics
Is it really possible to determine Parra’s control from looking at these graphics? They seem to show where his pitches end up… not necessarily where he was supposed to throw them.
Against the Nationals, I could see him throwing more pitches not for strikes because they aren’t patient hitters.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
You are right that he might have been hitting his spots and they just happened to be outside the zone against the Nationals. Try flipping through his game charts at FanGraphs, however, and you notice that he is, at best, around the zone. Compare this to some of the elite starters around the league (or even the Mark Buehrle types), and they just pound the zone. Manny can’t seem to do that.
The other that sticks out flipping through his game charts is that the movement on his curveball, especially the horizontal movement, is inconsistent. It seems to have more consistent vertical movement, but here is a start where he gets shelled by the Braves and is no where near the zone (a high percentage of pitches outside the zone are not swung at, so he was probably missing his spots). Again, his curve has no horizontal movement in this start.
There isn’t any one start on the game charts that demonstrates poor control, but I think its a safe assumption given his inability to produce a start where he pounds the zone like a quality pitcher. It can’t be his strategy every time out to get guys to swing at pitches outside the zone.
"It can’t be his strategy every time out to get guys to swing at pitches outside the zone."
Why not? I would think that would be the perfect outcome for any pitcher.
Granted, it’s not going to happen… you do have to throw strikes because if you can’t throw strikes consistently, hitters are just going to be patient and wait for that fastball down the middle of the plate.
Not saying that he doesn’t have control problems (he does), just wasn’t sure how to interpret those charts.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
Garrett Mock's career looks similar after a quick glance
Same jump in BB/9 from the minors to the majors, same career BABIP, wild pitches galore, just fewer major league innings.
Maybe he should play first base instead. That is, he should lie out there and we can step on him when we get a hit.
You gotta believe
that there’s got to be SOMETHING that can help him put it together… different pitch calling philosophy? One sock up, one sock down?
It’s so frustrating to watch him, he’s like early Rickie on the mound
Points needing to be addressed
great stuff
I think you overstate Manny’s stuff — His fastball is horrible, and his breaking stuff is ineffective to the point where he needs to rely on his horrible fastball.
tons of strikeouts
Parra throws hard — Pitchers that throw hard and are ineffective are still often able to put up good K/9 numbers. When Turnbow was imploding he still had a K/9 of ~11.
There’s no pitcher in baseball that has ever been like him, as far as I can tell
There have been plenty of pitchers that have a crappy fastball like Parra — most of them don’t get to pitch 400+ innings — that is what is entirely unique.
hopefully things start to change and the BABIP evens out and he becomes a solid starting pitcher.
I am guessing you have never heard the adage, “Fill up one hand with hope and the other with shit, and see which hand fills up faster?”
Parra has spent his ~440 inning career with a BABip over 320, and is now getting towards .340-350 — I don’t see where we can be optimistic that these numbers are going to revert any time soon.
Here is what I added to the Monday Mug before I realized Jordan wrote this post, as the Monday Mug is now buried (Jordan’s comments in bold)
"It’s irresponsible and stupid to dump Parra right now, there’s a chance he becomes successful is all he’s saying. And maybe very successful. And if you want them to DFA Parra tomorrow so Marco Estrada can get some September starts, that’s your right"
This is a weak strawman statement. No one is suggesting that we DFA tomorrow, and put Estrada in his spot. I think the majority "anti-Parra" platform, is that the idea that Parra "deserves" a spot in the rotation is indefensible, and Parra should be groomed as a RP. However, because our AAA starting pitching is so weak, we really don’t have a suitable option to replace Parra in the rotation— It really sucks our FO has made it so Parra cannot be replaced effectively.
In 1999, Greg Maddux had a BABIP allowed of .334. Point is, it can be extremely random. Pitchers have incredibly little control over what happens after a ball is put in play
BABip for pitchers is pretty consistent. Generally most pitchers gravitate towards that ~.300 mark these days. Jordan points out that Maddux had a .334 BABip one year but fails to point out that the following year he regressed to the league average — which is what should have been expected — Parra on the other hand, has NEVER been under .324 and has a career BABIP of .344 and currently is enjoying 2 consecutive seasons of a BABIP of .353 (according to Bref.)
Me, I’d like to see some reason why batters are able to get hits on balls in play at a historically high rate when his stuff is undeniably above-average. He does have bad control.
Manny Parra has one of the worst fastballs in MLB, and has terrible command of it. MLB hitters are shitty-pitch hitting machines. If you have ever watched MLB hitters take BP, you will notice that they don’t hit many groundballs — A MLB hitter’s ability to destroy mistake-pitching is not at all random, it gets crushed — in a nutshell there is your explanation.
But this .360 BABIP over nearly a year and a half is almost outside the realm of possibility
What is unique about Parra’s situation — is not Parra, however, it is the opportunity he has gotten to pitch while putting up bad stats. In the "Defense of Parra" article I did some queries looking at BABip & WHIP — and noticed that since 1950 the reason that Parra is such an outlier with his BABip — is that pitchers that consistently get hit as hard as Parra for the entirety of their career, did not get to pitch the ~440 innings that Parra has. This is a fact, despite feeble hand-waving attempts to the contrary. If you think about it though, it makes sense. Parra has enjoyed pitching for a team for the last 2 seasons that has absolutely no SP depth.
Comparisons to Carpenter/Lee
I find arguments that include Pitchers A-D to be utter bullshit.
First, it is simply cherry-picking, and ignoring MANY other potential comparisons that may be more apt to compare to Parra.
Second, If you actually look at the bad seasons that Carpenter and Lee had — I fail to see the merit in their comparisons… — In Carpenter’s 2000 season he was able to go 7+ innings in 13 of his starts. Parra has yet to do that this year — In Lee’s 2002 season he was able to go 6+ innings in 19 of his starts, again something Parra is clearly incapable of doing.
If Parra’s 2010 numbers were a balance of 8ip 1ER starts and 3IP 10ER starts — I could understand the call for patience — however, Parra has consistently crapped out in the 5th-6th inning this year, expending 100+ pitches, giving up BBs and hits…
Show me where Carpenter or Lee have had a season like Parra’s where they failed to continually get pulled in the 5th-6th inning.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 8:58 AM CDT reply actions 4 recs
These are the things that I hate.
1. Kevin Costner
2. Cauliflower
3. The musings of the elderly
4. Cub Fans
5. Urine Troughs
6. Fat chicks that hit on me at the Target, thinking they have a shot with me, because I am overweight.
7. Weak Photoshop efforts used in lieu of arguments containing words.
8. The fact that the Brewers can’t find players better than Suppan and Parra to pitch in their rotation.
9. Poorly constructed argument veiled by sabremetrics
10. Stubbing my toe.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions
for a second there
I thought #5 said Urine thoughts, and I wondered what is a urine thought? and THAT blew my own mind
Three thoughts:
1. Hater Tots is funny.
2. I like Cauliflower.
3. Just because some fat chick hit on you in Target 10 years ago doesn’t mean they all want you.
Like I needed another reason to hate diabetes.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Aug 24, 2010 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Three more thoughts.
1. Some people think Dane Cook is funny.
2. There were people that liked Hitler. I suspect that it would be very unlikely that all of the people that liked Hitler also hated Cauliflower.
3. I clearly stated that I hate the fat chicks that bother me at the Target, not fat chicks in general. This happens to me all the time. I have developed a theory about the aggressive and predatory mating nature of fat chicks called “Slow Elk theory”
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
or Cauliflower.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I never hit on guys at Target
…I never hit on girls at Target either, because it’s a really crappy place to meet people. It’s also creeeepy.
most guys you see in a Target are partnered anyway.
Cauliflower
is just a carrier for melted cheddar cheese. Or ranch sauce. It itself is not good. Nor is it bad. It’s like tofu.
P.S. 3 = BURN
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions
unless you can taste PTC
then cauliflower (and everything else on this list) tastes like ass, bitter bitter ass
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
fried insects are pretty good too
so I don’t think that validates cauliflower at all.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 25, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
#6 happens to you alot?
Come on… everyone needs some loving. :)
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
I think Parra's innings cap is around 4-5
or more accurately his pitch count cap is around 80. I remarked on this a season or two ago, and other than short stretches, he seems to frequently hit a wall in the mid 80 pitches.
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions
I alway though it was
shit in one hand hope in the other, see which one fills up first.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
yeah -- you worded it correctly.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
1) How are you concluding that Manny’s fastball is horrible? He’s throwing it near 93 mph this season and it has above average movement both horizontally and vertically (via Fangraphs pitch f/x). Obviously it is not a successful pitch right now, but as we’ve all noted that has more to do with his apparent tendency to throw fat pitches. That has nothing to do with his fastball “stuff” or its potential if he irons out whatever is going on with his inconsistent control.
2) Parra is not getting his strikeout numbers simply by “throwing hard” like Turnbow, that is ridiculous. Parra throws in the low-90s, Turnbow threw near 100 mph. Parra clearly has excellent stuff as witnessed by his high strikeout totals throughout his career, and to argue that he’s just throwing it past people is not only false, but clearly contradicts your own premise that his fastball is terrible.
3) Manny has been hittable, this is true. But he has been hittable unlike anyone ever before in the history of baseball; as in, more of his batted balls end up in play than anyone else by a wide margin (as seen in his ridiculously high BABIP). That makes him a statistically outlier, nobody else is even close. And if you argument is that it’s simply because nobody crappy gets to pitch 400+ IP, go to Baseball Reference and look up the hundreds of pitchers with 400+ IP and ERAs in the high 4.00’s or 5.00+. Not only is Parra’s BABIP unprecedentedly high among them, but his K/9 isn’t even close to anyone else with an ERA that high. Something’s got to give.
4) We’re optimistic his numbers will revert, because it is always unlikely a statistical anomaly continues indefinitely. Parra seems to be a high-BABIP pitcher, there’s no doubt about that. But he remains in “unbelievably high” territory, and the entire history of the sport of baseball suggests that he will revert toward the mean, sooner or latter.
5) What is the point of taking Parra out of the rotation right now? That you don’t answer. There are no options at AAA, Wolf has been nearly as awful, Bush is almost as inconsistent as Parra, and Narveson has been awful but doesn’t even really have any upside.
6) Greg Maddux’s BABIP fluctuated up to 40 points from season to season throughout his career and from a high of .334 (200+ IP) to a low of .253 (200+ IP). No, not necessarily between every two seasons, but I don’t think that was Jordan’s point. It’s well-established that BABIP fluctuates quite a bit between seasons for pitchers. And, regarding Manny’s BABIP, the reason it’s significant that he’s a historical anomaly is because it makes it hard to believe that his career BABIP will stay that high. To be honest, 440 IP (>400 IP as a starter) is not that long. For example, over his first 200+ IP, Maddux had a BABIP almost as high as Parra (.378 one season, .328 the next) and went on to have a career average of .289. We don’t have enough data to say that Manny we should expect Manny to continue to put up historically unprecedented BABIPs, and thus everything indicates that it should drop.
7) Back to the “worst fastball” fallacy. He has inconsistent control, obviously, but his strikeouts and stuff are undeniable. If he can figure out one little thing, like how to stop throwing fat pitchers or giving up the one big inning, he will suddenly stop being so hittable and become a very nice pitcher to have. Sometimes good pitchers take time to work these things out.
8) Again, this is not true. There are hundreds of bad pitchers who had hundreds of innings pitched and ERA’s above 5.00. Are you really suggesting that, factoring in total innings pitched, Parra is one of the worst pitchers of all time?
9) It’s not cherry-picking, you are entirely missing the point. Examples like Lee/Carpenter/Halladay arent’ meant to suggest that Parra will become the best pitcher in the baseball, just to illustrate that it’s ridiculous to base your evaluation of a player with above average stuff and great potential on where he’s at a certain age or innings total. Sometimes it takes a while to put things together, shockingly! I find it ironic that you accuse me of cherry-picking and then focus on a handful of starts Carpenter made in 2000 as proof that Parra is hopeless. It’s ridiculous to focus on IP/GS (which, even if you do, Parra and Lee/Carpenter weren’t that far off) and ignore all of their peripheral stats. You are now just grasping for straws to try and justify how Parra is uniquely terrible and the worst pitcher of all time and we should carry him out of Milwaukee on a rail and instead keep Bush, Narveson, et al. in the rotation for the remainder of a season that has been a lost cause for months now.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
by SRB on Aug 24, 2010 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
Also, re: Manny's BABIP
I should point out that you are assuming he has the highest BABIP with that many innings because “bad” pitchers never get to pitch that long, instead of the alternative that he has the highest BABIP with that many innings because the BABIP of pitchers who pitch a lot of innings inevitably trend toward the mean…
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I liked your big long post.
But — I don’t feel you have said anything I haven’t already addressed.
Except for this.
“You are now just grasping for straws to try and justify how Parra is uniquely terrible and the worst pitcher of all time and we should carry him out of Milwaukee on a rail and instead keep Bush, Narveson, et al. in the rotation for the remainder of a season that has been a lost cause for months now.”
1. Manny Parra is certainly approaching putting up the worst results for a starter given the numbers of starts he has had over his career.
2. I have never once suggested that Manny should be “run out of town on a rail” or anything of the sort. I suggested that the idea of Parra “deserving” a spot in the rotation is indefensible and Parra could be an effective reliever.
3. I have never discussed Bush or Narveson because I find them irrelevant to a discussion about Parra.
You also said this:
What is the point of taking Parra out of the rotation right now? That you don’t answer.
I have clearly addressed this many times — in fact I was one of the few people that wanted Suppan to break camp with the Brewers as I felt that the Brewers didn’t have any better options to replace him, and I feel the same way about Parra.
I think the only “undeniable” aspect in this whole Parra discussion — is the Brewers appalling lack of starting pitcher depth.
I would rather debate the merits of Parra “deserving” a spot in the rotation rather than continually pointing out the very obvious lack of pitching depth that Narveson, Bush, Suppan, Capuano are all benefiting from.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
So if the other options are arguably worse, how is he not deserving of a spot in the rotation...?
“I don’t feel you have said anything I haven’t already addressed.”
This is why the Parra debate is giving me a headache. I guess at a certain point some people just aren’t going to change the way they feel about him.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
Just because Bush, Wolf, etc., suck....
Really doesn’t make Parra suck any less.
I won’t change the way how I think about Parra until he starts pitching differently. I think that is fair.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Either that, or I here a compelling argument.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions
hear
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions
It is fair.
But if the context of the argument is “what to do with Manny Parra?”, I think we have a point here. You picked out my quote above, and though DFA was an overstatement, I haven’t really seen a good alternative to Parra in the rotation put forth. If you’re arguing if he deserves to be in the rotation and I’m arguing if he should remain in the starting rotation, we’re talking about different things.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
I certainly realize there isn't an option to replace Parra
That said — I think that Parra could have a good career as a reliever. I don’t know what good sending Parra to the bump every 5 days to get shelled and hooked in the 5th-6th inning is — other than someone has to start, and there really aren’t better options.
I just think there should be a distinction between Parra as a reasonable starting pitcher option, and Parra as the “best we have” option.
I think we agree on the difference between the two —
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions
If there were a better alternative I would be all for replacing him
But in a lost year, I’d rather give a young pitcher with potential (I think you can agree with that phrasing) a continued chance to go instead of running a veteran with little chance of being on the team next year out there every fifth day.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
As long as it doesn't stunt his development as a reliever.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions
as I said
over yonder there might be a definable reason he has such a high BABIP that is simply not exhibited most other pitchers. Furthermore, as I stated there, giving up a lot of hits may have resulted in players being dismissed from the rotation or the club in the past, whereas nowadays we have these fancy sabermetric statistics that suggest that he should be able to turn it around, which might be why the Brewers have stuck with him so long.
8 players since 1954 having as high of a WHIP as Parra and a significant number of innings (see TheJay’s post) reinforces to me this point. That’s only one pitcher every 7 years on average who a) may have sucked for some other reason than BABIP in particular or b) may have avoided being cut from their team for one reason or another.
I’m not convinced that pitcher BABIP is due for regression to any particular global mean, even if adjusted by line drive%, etc. I think it’s QUITE possible that Parra has a sustainably high BABIP and it’s not going to magically regress to normal levels in a single season. There’s likely SOME skill that he is lacking that’s keeping the BABIP high. Whether it’s occasionally hanging one up in the zone, tipping his individual pitches, having a predictable sequence of pitches, I think it’s likely attributable to something other than luck. Maybe he (or the pitching coaches) will intentionally or inadvertently correct whatever he’s doing wrong and he’ll become an average BABIP from here on out, but chances with this coaching staff and his trends over time are pretty slim.
Obviously, I don’t have any data to support my supposition, but I think it’s just as reasonable (if not more:P) for me to expect that his BABIP will remain elevated (for any annual window) relative to not only league average but also to the “high water mark” of normal (.330)
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions
It is reasonable to expect that
But I think it’s just as reasonable to assume the following three things:
- Even allowing this amount of hits, Parra has been able to have a successful season (2008).
- If he is able to fix whatever factor is driving the BABIP so high, he has the potential to be a very good starting pitcher.
- Even with the struggles of the past two years, he is still not pitching worse than most teams aggregate fifth starter, which usually comes in with an ERA of close to 6.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
fair enough
I’m not in the flay-Parra-alive school yet. I reserve that vitriol for Melvin.
Just wanted to say one more thing (not directed to you, but to the more general audience). Just because someone deviates from the mean of something (like BABIP) doesn’t mean that they’re due to regress (significantly) toward it. That’d be like saying André the Giant, with his 7’4" 500lbs would have suddenly gone to being 5’10" 155lbs (.300 BABIP). Or even 6’8" 200lbs (.330 BABIP).
Yes, BABIP is a lot more subject to diminishing than height is, but the point is just because something deviates from the norm doesn’t mean it deserves to be the norm and will get there (or close to there).
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions
okay... 6'8" 200 was a bad example
that’s probably pretty skinny for 6’8" :P Lets go with 275
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course
It doesn’t mean that Parra should have a .250 BABIP the next three years. But I expect somewhere between where he’s been and the league average. Something like .320-.330.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Thinking that Parra will have a .250 BABIP is the gamblers' fallacy
I hope that no-one here actually believes that he will.
by BrewCrewBrian on Aug 25, 2010 7:15 AM CDT up reply actions
I pretty much agree with your arguments in that linked post.
Overall, IMHO arguing based on the lack of “Parra comparables” in history is a bit of a non sequitur. Bill James may have found out – with the benefit of hindsight – that the eventual success of a given pitcher (or lack thereof) was always strongly correlated to their strikeout rates, but that doesn’t mean historical GMs and managers actually selected players on that basis. Pitchers were commanded to “challenge the hitter”, and guys who did that and somehow couldn’t prevent the hits from falling in at a high rate (whether due to innate “skill” or simply bad team defense) were promptly sent back to the minors for more seasoning. Some may have gotten a second shot at the majors later on and then benefited from regression (with onlookers concluding that he “learned something” in the minors), others may have put up a high BABIP once again and been bounced off the team just as quickly as the first time.
Nobody’s saying that that was necessarily an optimal strategy for finding good pitchers. Variance and regression are obviously real phenomena, and I’m quite sure that some MLB-quality pitchers were prevented from having at least a journeyman career purely by bad luck in a short first stint in the majors. But that doesn’t mean that everybody who starts off badly and is then given a longer opportunity will reverse their fortunes.
Selection bias cuts both ways: I read “great stuff, tons of strikeouts, poor control, and extremely hittable” in Jordan’s post, and my first thought wasn’t “strange combination of skills”, it was “hey, that sounds like an unpolished guy with plenty of raw talent who’s somewhere in the mid-minors trying to get rid of a big shortcoming”. Some of those guys eventually develop into MLB-quality pitchers, many others wash out without even holding their own in Triple-A. Maybe, just maybe Parra’s a guy with one major shortcoming (inability to keep down his BABIP) who offers enough other skills to still be sub-mediocre at the MLB level. That other pitchers manage to be sub-mediocre with different shortcomings doesn’t mean it’s impossible for a BABIP-related skill to be the cause for one particular pitcher(*), it may just be more rare than others, and suppressed from appearing in the historical records by usage patterns, not lack of existence. Can we at least acknowledge that if it is an actual shortcoming, the odds are against Parra ever overcoming it, given the high washout rates of “pitchers with issues” in the minors?
Anyway, the near-religious adherance to sabermetric rules of thumb (and that’s all they are) is getting rather irritating, not just here on BCB. I’m as big of a math and stats-focused guy as anyone, but many conversations around the blogosphere are reaching “mainstream media with math” levels of orthodoxy and stubbornness nowadays. Yes, it’s reasonable to expect any given outlier to regress simply because that’s the mean expectation, but that doesn’t mean persistent outliers are just a mirage; somebody has to be at the far ends of the bell curve, after all.
(*) I’m reminded of a recent certain sumo wrestler who was a physical beast (even by sumo standards) and absolutely obliterated the “trainee” divisions. Then he reached the top level – and promptly wrecked both his knees in the first couple of years because he’d never had to bother learning the first thing about proper defense until it was too late. And smarter observers had predicted exactly that. He wasn’t the first big guy with a general lack of technique to be reasonably successful, but nobody had ever reached the upper levels with such a dearth of defensive skills – and he even managed to remain relatively effective following the first knee injury! (No surgery, in case you’re wondering, just conservative rehab without taking time off.)
It wasn’t until the second injury – now in the other knee – that he realized he had to make drastic changes. Anyway, my point is that – for a little while at least – this guy managed to be mediocre at the top level while lacking a skill that was generally considered “unlackable” for somebody in the top division. The difference between that guy and Manny Parra may simply be that baseball is structured such that it doesn’t offer the “opportunity” to suffer a singular, huge red flag event like the knee injuries were for the wrestler; instead it’s all 3.2 IP starts here, 7 ER given up there, just small evidence slowly piling up.
by Zeyes on Aug 24, 2010 5:48 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
rec'd
especially for the obscure sports reference
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, first of all, I don’t think Jordan or I or anybody else defending Parra is guilty of a “near-religious adherence to sabermetric rules of thumb,” as if anyone is blindly suggesting Parra should have exactly a .300 BABIP because that’s considered the average BABIP. Secondly, yes, somebody has to be at the far ends of the bell curve. And Parra will most likely always been on the “high BABIP” end. But the entire point of a bell curve/normal distribution is that there generally aren’t lone statistical outliers way off in another time zone, which is what Parra is right now.
I also think the “Parra has an unprecedentedly high BABIP because most bad pitchers don’t get to pitch that long, so that explains everything” is beginning to miss the original point of using BABIP to evaluate Parra. It’s not just a measure of a pitcher’s hittability, as I think people are beginning to treat it, but of the percentage of balls in play that fall in for hits. Truly bad pitchers tend to have high H/9 and relatively normal BABIPs; because they aren’t good pitchers. They have poor stuff and thus give up a lot of balls in play, and thus a lot of hits. That’s not entirely the case with Parra. Does Parra just throw a lot of meatball pitches that are crushed? Not really. As I noted below, his ISO against is around league average (meaning a disproportionate number of hits against him aren’t screamers into the outfield). A ridiculous number of balls put in play against him just end up falling for hits. There is loads of statistical evidence that suggests pitchers have no control over balls put in play, so until someone articulates for me what exactly is giving Parra such a high BABIP, I will continue to expect it to regress into a more realistic distribution from the norm. His inconsistency and tendency to occasionally throw bad pitchers might help explain it, but to me that seems like something that could eventually be corrected in a guy with great stuff, and thus an excellent reason in favor of continuing to believe in Parra.
BABIP is also not the only stat, or really even the primary stat, that suggest Parra should be better. His FIP and xFIP also suggest as much. You can’t argue that nobody as bad as Parra has been allowed to pitch so long, and thus that’s why he doesn’t conform to the sabermetric “rules of thumb” that are the basis for stats like FIP. They are based on the histories of every pitcher in the history of the major leagues (well, not exactly, but you know what I mean), and I don’t see any reason to think that a given correlation between K/BB/HR and performance that is true for a “good” pitcher is not also true for a “bad” pitcher. Which is why Parra is such a strange case. Simply saying that Parra is a bad pitcher and that there would have been loads of similarly high-BABIP or high-ERA/low-FIP pitchers in the history of the majors if their careers didnt’ flame out earlier doesn’t actually address what those stats mean, or why these theoretical pitchers would have maintained a BABIP like Parra.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I do think the definition of BABIP has gotten mixed up here a bit, and you make a great point
I don’t blindly follow the Fangraphs batted ball classifications, but consider that Parra, over the past three years, has allowed a line drive percentage of 21%, 18%, and 18% (2008, 2009, 2010). I can’t say I know how to tell you a general league average for LD%, but here are some other pitchers off the top of my head, career:
Sabathia, 20%
Gallardo, 21.3%
Cliff Lee, 19.7%
Roy Halladay, 19%
Doug Davis, 21%
Dave Bush, 18.6%
Kevin Jepsen, 17%
It’s not really a stat I look at to determine pitching skill, but it’s been believed that LD% can be linked at least somewhat to BABIP for hitters, at least. Parra just doesn’t give up an abnormal amount of line drives. And he doesn’t allow very many balls to be put in play compared to most pitchers, it’s just that when he does, they tend to become hits for whatever wacky reason. Realize that a fastball down the pipe that is crushed for a home run has nothing to do with BABIP. And it just seems to be untrue that Parra gives up a ton of line drives on the balls that are put in play.
Just because I think it will get asked, the Fangraphs classification is based on a person (stringer) that watches each play and determines if a ball in play was a ground ball, line drive, or fly ball. There’s a bit of subjectivity involved but if we all classified every ball i bet there’d only be a few per season we would dispute.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
...
Well, first of all, I don’t think Jordan or I or anybody else defending Parra is guilty of a "near-religious adherence to sabermetric rules of thumb,"
You are certainly free to your opinion — however I have found your arguments incredibly dogmatic, almost to the point where it seems to me you have never actually watched Parra pitch.
I would also like to add the same group “religiously adhering” also tend to be somewhat delusional about their objectivity.
This community has a lot of intelligent readers that are very open to statistical analysis, and I feel that these readers can see the importance that observation and the common sensibility that sabremetrics is not a catch-all net.
I also think the "Parra has an unprecedentedly high BABIP because most bad pitchers don’t get to pitch that long, so that explains everything" is beginning to miss the original point of using BABIP to evaluate Parra
You and Jordan seem to be intentionally overstating your arguments for effect somewhat habitually now. No one has presented the above point.
To recap:
No one has suggested Parra should be “DFA’d” or “Run out of town on a rail” — In fact I think the majority opinion wants to see Parra in the BP, or finishing out the year in the rotation.
No one has suggested that their ideas about Parra explain his struggles in totality.
Some people have suggested that Prince needs to throw Parra around in the dugout more.
With regard to “pitching poorly for long times”…. Over the last 2 years, Manny Parra is: (> 200 IP)
1.) #2 in BB/9
2.) #1 in WHIP
3.) #4 in H/9
These are rankings from the bottom to the top — If a pitcher over the course of 2 years, has those kind of numbers, he better hope he is a hard-throwing lefty on a team with a dearth of starting pitching, otherwise he is getting cut.
In the above SRB post there is a lot of discussion about h/9, but it neglects the BB/9 aspect of Parra’s pitching. I don’t think Parra is helping himself out by walking as many batters as he does.
I can appreciate the idea that Parra’s numbers should head to the mean somewhat — however, I don’t think enough credit is given to MLB hitters and their ability to crush bad pitching.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 25, 2010 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Regarding Manny's fastball
His average movement is good, but what about his deviations from his average? How often does he throw a really shitty fastball? Can we see that in PitchFX? His problem definitely isn’t his typical fastball, it’s his inability to consistently throw his typical fastball.
(I’m not being patronizing, I just want to know if anyone else knows so I can try to wrap my head around this.)
Yes, I would wager it's his inconsistency
That doesn’t mean he has an inherently terrible, hittable fastball though. Not in the least.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I'm struggling with this concept:
how is a fastball that’s never been worth more than (-24) runs in a season anything other than horrible? Call it unsuccessful, call it whatever — but it’s not good. Right?
SRS BSNS
Thank you.
I could have written just about every word there, summing up my arguments in a clearer way than I have been putting them.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
If Parra's fastballs have movement
then he probably wouldn’t be shelled whenever he throws it. Probably just a bunch of singles and other ground hits but not ones that are crushed into the air
by ilikeburritos on Aug 24, 2010 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions
A pitcher with a high 4 or 5+ ERA
isn’t a very bad pitcher. Teams regularly get over a 5.00 ERA out of their 5th spot in the rotation.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
His ERA was well over 6 last season and this season it was quickly approaching it.
Coupled with the fact that he wasn’t able to pitch beyond the 5th inning effectively.
I think the Brewers and fans could accept Manny if he could produce consistently like a #5, but what makes things worse is that they currently have three #5 pitchers in the rotation.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
I'm confused
If you took this list
“it’s the highest career BABIP allowed by a pitcher with a minimum of 100 innings since 1954. "
and sorted it as such: “I wanted to sort them by the highest K rates.”
you would just get the highest K rates for a pitcher that pitched 100 innings, no BABIP involved.
Only 2 pitcher in top 100 with over 900 innings
Zach Duke
and
Glendon Rusch – He is 59th on the list with .331 BABIP
He has a 6.62 K/9 2.8 BB/9 and 2.36 K/ BB (Parra is 1.84 K/BB)
For some reason yesterday his name popped in my head. Tell me why Parra can’t be the next Rusch and why he should be the next Carpenter?
Taking it to the extreme
but if, say, I were to attempt to pitch against major league hitters my BABIP would be well over .360. It’d probably be somewhere around 1.000 because any time I managed to hit the strike zone it would get blasted into the second deck.
then you'd have a BABIP of 0
or rather undefined.
2nd deck is not in play
by PagsBrewCrew on Aug 24, 2010 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I think that is sort of the whole point
Pitchers who get hit as hard as Manny Parra are not usually given as many innings as he has. On the other hand, we really don’t have a really good replacement and we are not going to be competing this year so we might as well let him finish out the year and make changes in the offseason.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
There are 227 pitchers with H/9 > 10.0 and IP > 400
And a lot of them had long careers and pitched thousands of innings.
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
Not just the hits, but the walks and slugging against, too
Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1954 to 2010, (requiring slugging_perc>=.420, whip>=1.6, Hp9>=10 and At least 400 Innings Pitched), sorted by name
Rk SLG WHIP H/9 IP From To Age G GS
1 Don Wengert .513 1.655 11.67 438.2 1995 2001 25-31 160 48
2 Kevin Ritz .426 1.626 10.13 753.1 1989 1998 24-33 151 130
3 Manny Parra .446 1.663 10.48 440.2 2007 2010 24-27 101 74
4 Jim Parque .462 1.637 10.75 544.1 1998 2003 23-28 103 97
5 Jimmy Haynes .449 1.632 10.18 1200.2 1995 2004 22-31 227 203
6 Kyle Davies .455 1.599 10.00 659.2 2005 2010 21-26 130 123
7 Lance Cormier .464 1.626 10.26 440.1 2004 2010 23-29 266 24
8 Scott Aldred .481 1.623 10.46 499.2 1990 2000 22-32 229 67
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 8/24/2010.
Note: I used 1954-2010 since you can get wonky results looking up SLG, etc., before then. I also added Davies as he had exactly one too many outs recorded in his career to otherwise make the list. Also, dropping the WHIP to 1.5 and SLG to .400 brings the total up to a whopping 35 pitchers.
Maybe he should play first base instead. That is, he should lie out there and we can step on him when we get a hit.
Career K/9
Wengert: 4.6
Ritz: 5.5
Parra: 8.1
Parque: 5.5
Haynes: 5.7
Davies: 6.3
Cormier: 5.3
Aldred: 5.6
A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, battered, deep fried and served on a stick.
Pitchers can have a high K/9
and still be ineffective overall.
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Aug 24, 2010 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Exactly
And that’s why he’s such an incredible historical outlier. It’s just not logical that a pitcher can get swings and misses, strike people out, and still be this hittable. It’s conceivable in a Turnbow scenario where the walks per 9 are over 6 or so but it’s not like Parra’s that incredibly wild.
E: George 4 (5, throw, throw, throw, throw).
Using that to suggest he gets abnormally hard is kind of deceptive though
His SLG against is already inflated by his abnormally high BABIP and AVG against. Manny Parra’s career ISO against is .156, while the MLB averages during his career have been .146 (2010), .156 (2009), and .152 (2008).
Ryan Braun: He loves it.
I was gonna say ...
if it’s lasting more than four hours, he should call a doctor. :)
SRS BSNS
by Rubie Q on Aug 24, 2010 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
Some similiarities (wildness, lots of walks, high K/9 ratio)
but at 24 and in his third season in MLB, Witt started 22 games and finished all but 9 of them.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
It doesn't look like they cared about pitch counts back then
He was still giving up the hits and walks, but throwing over 150 pitches on occasion. Even when he got yanked in the 4th inning he never got pulled until he’d thrown at least 100 pitches.
It looks like they cared about PC...
just that as a starter, you have to at least throw 100 pitches before they’d even consider pulling you.
Pujols is the Barack Obama of baseball.
Glad this wasn't titled, 'Girls Who Are Nasty and Hittable'
http://www.mlbsoup.com
by tcyoung on Aug 26, 2010 2:47 PM CDT reply actions 4 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Cincinnati
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Houston
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Milwaukee
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
St. Louis
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
(updated 2.16.2012 at 7:03 AM CST)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
