First Pitch Strikes
The Washington Nationals have made big changes to their pitching staff this year. Can this squad throw strikes? How important is it for pitchers to get ahead early in the count? Does throwing a first pitch strike have any impact on a pitcher's success rate? How did the Nats current roster do in 2009? While pitchers and catchers are making their way to spring training, I thought it would be a good time to go looking for answers.
Diving in to the 2009 pitches database, I pulled the first pitch for every plate appearance of the season. I broke each of those pitches in to one of three categories: ball, strike, and pitch put in play. MLB batters made over 187,000 plate appearances in 2009. 58.13% of the time, the pitcher either threw a strike, or the pitch was put in play. After computing that information, it was simple to plot the results. I created a chart with 4 groups:
- The 20 lowest ERAs by MLB starters in 2009 are plotted in Black
- 5 Top relievers are plotted in Green
- Pitchers currently on the Nats roster are in Red (minimum 15 innings pitched in 2009)
- Artists formerly known as Nats pitchers are in Purple (what else!)
- Just in case - John Smoltz is displayed in Brown
For easy reference, I added 2 dashed orange lines. The ERA line is at 4.20, which was the 2009 NL average. The First Pitch Strike line is at the MLB average 58.13%.
The upper left corner shows pitchers with higher than average First Pitch Strike (FPS) percentages and lower than average ERAs. Notice that 16 of the 20 lowest ERAs by starters this year fall in the upper left quadrant. All five of the relievers I plotted have higher than average FPS, and lower than average ERA. For the Nats, John Lannan, Tyler Clippard, and Tyler Walker fall into this grouping.
The bottom left corner shows pitchers with lower than average ERAs, but also lower than average FPS percentages. For all of us who had our heart in our throats watching Mike MacDougal pitch last year, this chart really hits home. He had one of the lowest FPS percentages on the team in 2009.
The upper right corner shows pitchers who by and large got ahead in the count, but still had trouble keeping runs from scoring. John Smoltz fell in to this group last year. He did his usual great job throwing strikes, but he was knocked around quite a bit - raising his ERA to well above the NL average.
In the lower right corner is the worst of both worlds - pitchers who didn't throw strikes early in the count, and didn't stop the runs from scoring. The good news for Nats fans is that the purple group, highly represented in this quadrant, has been purged from the roster.
Finally, for anyone who needs the numbers down to the hundredth, here is the table I used to build the chart.
0 recs |
14 comments
|
Comments
I would use xFIP instead of ERA for this
Otherwise, nice study. Good visual that makes it easy to compare pitchers.
whats the fundemental difference between xfip
and FIP? I’ve heard people tell me xFIP is better, but im not really sure how it differs.
As I recall, xFIP uses a league-average "expected" HR rate instead of the pitcher's actual HR rate.
I think the idea is that a pitcher can’t control the fraction of fly balls that go yard, so a pitcher that gives up more dingers per fly ball is “unlucky.” xFIP removes this “luck” aspect of HRs like FIP removes the “luck” aspect of defense. I’d be interested in seeing this versus FIP/xFIP, too—we can all marvel at the mystery that is John Lannan.
Either way, though, this is great stuff, natsstats! If you’re working from PitchF/X data, perhaps I can enlist your aid in a research project I’ve been struggling with for a while: “Objective proof that Hunter Wendelstedt is a jerkwad.”
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
I am using PitchF/X data.
I ran a query on umpires, indexed on jerkwad, and came up with Angel Hernandez. Maybe next time I’ll sort by weight.
Using ERA the guys in the upper right were likely victoms of bad defense and poor luck
bottom left more likely were lucky. Note Lincecum was less likely to throw a first pitch strike than most of the young starters (and Marquis even less likey)… This may be a long season ahead for Marquis. He was a lucky pitcher with great defense behing him last season. Now he has our infield backing him up.
"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James
Lincecum is kind of unique in that he gets the most strikes on balls of anyone in the game
Mostly swinging. My previous comment was not meant to imply he was worse than Martis or anything like that. Just pointing out we had a bunch of guys with very good control and bad luck on our team.
"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James
well I dont think bad luck tells the whole story
though, that is certainly part of it…. Remember, FIP measures everything the pitcher can control, this includes Hr’s, walks, and K’s. Most of the guys on our club were deficent in at least one of these areas… some were deficent in all 3.
Yes, they were probably better than their ERA’s, but that a’nt sayin much.
Also, just because you can throw a strike doesn't mean it's a GOOD strike.
Olsen and Zimmermann got batted around pretty hard last year—allowing contact is a pitcher skill, although the outcome of the contact certainly depends on the defense.
"And everybody lived happily ever after. Except the Phillies and the Mets. The End." --Sasskuash
Friend of Dukes and Desmond #3
Just pointing out we had a bunch of guys with very good control and bad luck on our team"
We had a bunch of guys with good control? On what planet?
I'm shocked
Daniel Cabrera was as high as 51%. He could never find the strike zone. Regardless of what pitch number it was.
Why not us? Why not now?
He really concentrated on that 1st pitch...
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Feb 9, 2010 9:45 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Hahaha
Both of those are hilarious. Good for old Cabrera.
Ha, actually he signed a gig with Ozzie Guillen and the Sox.
And possibly wild pitches, most likely wild pitches
Why not us? Why not now?

by 


























