I was about to smack James around for calling Felix an up-the-ladder pitcher but slap me silly if I didn't just learn something.
How have I been watching Felix pitch for the last seven years and not noticed that he suddenly went from a groundball pitcher to a neutral pitcher at the precise moment when he went from merely "OK" to CY contender? In 2005-2007, Felix flashed brilliance from time to time but was generally frustrating to watch because you knew he was capable of more. In fact, his HR rates were shocking high for a guy keeping the ball on the ground. Dr. D analyzed this as his not knowing fear and pitching to contact too much against good hitters to avoid the walk. Perhaps it was this defeating attitude of avoiding the walk and groveling for lucky grounders that led to the high mistake rate. Because in 2008, when he suddenly got silly-good, his GB/FB dropped to near 1 and stayed there.
Huh...how the heck did I not notice that?
...............
... Not to be confused with Bedtime for Bonzo.
In August 2010, James posted this provocative analysis of Brandon Webb's career, $3 subscription required, though we have permission for archive excerpts...
BIll your thoughts on Brandon Webb. Yes he did have a short career but he did dominate to an extent. You can't hold a guy at fault for an injury unless he did something stupid to cause it. If he never throws another pitch again do you think he deserves some sort of recognition/respect from the HOF/MLB? Not saying he deserves his name on a plaque in Cooperstown but the guy was on the way to having oneAsked by: AnonymousAnswered: 8/24/20101) I believe that you're exaggerating what he has accomplished. There are a dozen pitchers who have careers like that in every generation. 2) In terms of special recognition, he would rank far behind Saberhagen, David Cone, David Wells, Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser and others. They were more dominant than he was, and they lasted longer. 3) Let's not assume that Webb is finished.4) I've said it a thousand times, but. . .I don't believe in ground ball pitchers. I don't trust them, I don't want them, and I don't believe one should ever invest money in them.In theory, a ground ball pitcher with a good strikeout rate is the best of both worlds. But the problem is, there just aren't any pitchers like that who are consistently good; they all either get hurt or they lose home plate. The only pitcher like that who has had a great career in the last 30 years was Kevin Brown. The overwhelming majority of the consistently good pitchers are the guys who live off of the high fastball--Clemens, Schilling, the Unit, Pedro, Santana, King Felix, Verlander, Sabathia, etc.
Revolutionary ideas go through like five stages: 1. Ridicule, 2, 3, 4, I forget, 5. They make a movie and you're a millionaire. Something like that.
My first reaction to the above was disbelief, but I've been thinking about it ever since...
Then recently he was asked why K rates climb higher and higher and higher...
Hey Bill, In the 1930s and 1940s Ks per game were in the 3s for each team ... what accounts for this rise in Ks per game ... going from 4 to 5 Ks per game, but then a relatively long time to go from 5 to 6 and then 6 to 7? Thanks,Asked by: RanBrickerAnswered: 1/30/2012The essential thing that drives strikeouts upward is that strikeouts (through most of baseball history) were positive for pitchers but were not negative for hitters. In other words, through most of baseball history pitchers who had high strikeouts rates were more successful than those who had low strikeout rates, which creates pressure for more strikeouts, but hitters who had high strikeout rates were no LESS successful than batters who struck out less; indeed, they were generally MORE successful than batters who struck out less.So there is upward pressure on strikeouts, no downward pressure, with the result that strikeouts go up. This force manifests itself in a lot of specific places, such as the use of more and more relievers with very high K rates in short-term action, but the tension that drives strikeouts upward is this assymetry, in which one player gains an advantage by strikeouts while the other has no disadvantage.The trend will stop when the point is reached at which the advantage of not striking out (for hitters) is equal to the advantage of strikeouts for pitchers.
Which is a delightful little paradox: strikeouts are very positive for pitchers, but not very negative at all for hitters. Huh. I hadn't connected those two dots. Funhouse mirror time.
.
=== Philosophical Corner, Dept. ===
Dr. D got to thinking about this paradox, the fact that K's are gold to pitchers, but that they are a dead currency from the offensive side of the ball.
One thing about it, just to pick one thing: strikeout pitchers attack the hitters, while groundball hitters concede defeat before they ever wind up.
I mean, you can quibble, he's being intelligent, yada yada yada. But I'm talking 3-on-3 basketball on the asphalt. Some guys drive into the lane, and some don't. Some pump-fake three times to get their weak shots off, and some just attack...
A strikeout pitcher throws high fastballs above the hitter's bat and curve balls that drop under the bat. A groundball pitcher does ... what? In Jim Bouton's words, he says "I just know you're going to cream this pitch. Please hit a line drive at somebody. Please." He is throwing a pitch that he knows the hitter will time, and he is just striking a bargain with the hitter: OK, you can smack it, if you will leave it in the park, please." It's kind of depressing.
.
=== Immovable Objects and Irresistible Forces, Dept. ===
I always thought the irresistible force, maybe a neutrino, went through the plasma wall and both got their way. Is that an inkblot test? :- )
The conventional sabermetrician is partial TO groundball pitchers, whereas Baseball Astronaut James is diametrically opposed. This creates a delicious situation for the baseball connoisseur.
I'm not saying that there isn't a place for the groundball pitcher in the game, of course. You can play a bend-but-don't-break defense in the NFL. It's just that it's a weenie way to try to win.
Yes, the more you think about James' bias, the more you realize that 5K groundball pitchers are grovelling their way to mediocrity. Not to make a value judgment, of course.
No, seriously, as I think it through, groundball pitchers look more and more to me like band-aids and stoplosses. Maybe I'm wrong.
Comments
Tim Hudson (59% Career GB%, 6.1 K/9, 3.4 ERA)
Derek Lowe (63% Career GB%, 5.9 K/9, 3.9 ERA)
Roy Halladay (55% Career GB%, 6.9 K/9, 3.2 ERA)
Of course you already mentioned Felix
These guys didn't carve out a few mediocre years, these guys competed for (and in Halladay's and Felix's case won) Cy Youngs. Not saying that it's not used by a lot of mediocre pitchers, I'm just saying it's not 1 pitcher per generation that can make it work. Could these guys have been better had they made more attempts to get batters to swing over their heads? Who can say, probably not for Derek Lowe, though he's the weak link on the list, but would the rest of them have been better with an extra 1.5 K/9 and an extra .2 HR/9?
His question is whether a pitcher whose ONLY ability is groundballs has much staying power for the future. The core concept here is investment.
Halladay for sure he would not classify a groundballer - you wouldn't call Michael Pineda a finesee pitcher because of a sub-3 walk rate. Halladay's strikeout rate was 8.5 per game last year.
Sure, if James Paxton wants to get 50% groundballs with his 8-9 strikeouts a game, we have no complaints about that :- ) but he still won't be the "groundball pitcher" we're talking about. Those are the guys who pound the knees at 91 mph, say "go ahead and hit it" and try to control the damage.
.
As to pitchers who throw both K's and groundballs, he concedes "sure, that would give you the best of all worlds" but he claims that you're making long odds betting on that.
As a general population, their chances of pitching at a high level, for a long period of time, is far reduced.
He's claiming that if you take 100 Justin Verlanders, vs. 100 Brandon Webbs, you're going to get like 4,000 WAR out of the Verlanders and like 2,000 out of the Webbs. Or something like that.
Jamie Moyer threw 87 mph and he beat the odds, but do you bet on the next 87 mph lefty down the road? :- )
...............
Derek Lowe and Tim Hudson are two examples of groundballers who have had nice careers but (1) they both get a fair number of strikeouts, like 6.0, and (2) they're both somewhat disappointing relative to, say, a CC Sabathia who was comparable to them at Y2, Y3 of each pitcher's career.
Lowe's ERA+ is 112 career. He's a useful pitcher but if he's the #2-3 groundball pitcher of his generation, how well does he compare to the #2-3 strikeout pitcher of the generation?
Would be interested to hear your take on your own ideas especially as it applies to --- > Felix vs LHB's in those years.
Time and again, it seemed, Felix threw that low swerveball out onto the barrels of LHB's bats and time and again he got crushed. He needed to go up and into the inside third...
The good news, for me, is that Felix still has lots of room for growth. He could fan 10+ men per ballgame if he wanted to. I wonder if he'll slowly drift into that game, as he has already been doing to some extent.
...I think he loved his 2-seamer a bit too much and was using it against every batter...not just the righties as a jam pitch. He was counting on being able to spot the shuuto on the outside corner to lefties and every time he missed in with it, it got pulverized. I don't think he was trying to get a lot of the plate with that pitch...I think he was just not quite pinpoint enough to get away with throwing it to lefties.
I think he did two things to up his game: he made his wind-up much more deceptive with a bigger hip turn that hid the ball better (so the batters couldn't tell that he's still tipping his breaking balls with a big open glove hand that shows his grip!) and he learned that lefties can't hit his 4-seamer inside or his change-up away and righties can't hit his slider or his two-seamer. Seriously...watch his pitch sequences to each side these days...against righties, you'll see a blizzard of located 92-93 mph wrinkle 2-seamers (not the big over-pronated whiffle-ball, but still a good 2-seamer) and sliders and against the lefties, you'll see overhand curveballs when he needs a breaking pitch but mostly change-ups and 4-seamers at 95-96.
The reduction in the sink and swerve in his 2-seamer explains the reduction in cheap grounders. The smarter situational pithcing explains the increased K rate lately when combined with the hip-turn. The change-up has also improved, which helps.
Has only topped 7 K/9 4 times (in a row the last several seasons). From 2002-2007, he ran a 3.27 ERA in the AL East with a K/9 of 6.2.
But would Derek Lowe have been better if he'd tried high fastballs instead of low sinkers? Derek Lowe couldn't compete on a strikeout basis, he topped out at 8 for 1 season as a reliever. Say he could have been a 7 K/9 2.5BB/9 and given up 17-22 HR/Season instead of 12-17, would he have posted a better ERA? Been healthier?
Getting ready to start the wiffle ball battle cry for 2012! Is it too early?
Go Scott