PTI on ... the 2001 M's Pitching
Q. The 2001 Mariners did not have a terrific pitching staff. They had a league average pitching staff…below average rotation, well above bullpen.
A. This is key, because it goes to the broader question of: what happens when you have a sensational DER?, because the 2001 M's had a DER that was, quote, "eerily better than the rest of the league" as Baseball Prospectus put it in their 2002 annual.
I'm a fan of DNRA+ and always like to know what it says. But all defensive (and defense-oriented) metrics will have their fliers, and this is one of them. Any metric that accuses the 2001 Mariner pitchers of being "league average" is blowing a circuit in that loop. :- ) Consider:
.............................
1. There are three things that a pitcher can do, that are not affected by whether it is Jason Ellison, CF playing LF or whether it is Adam Dunn playing LF. Those three things are: strike three, ball four, and home run. Neither Dunn, nor Ellison, can do ANYTHING whatsover about those three pitching results.
........................
2. When you examine a pitcher according to those three pitching results, then you are getting an UNTHEORETICAL Hubble-telescope view into the murky nebula of whether a pitcher is winning his matchups.
UZR is theoretical. DNRA+ is theoretical. xERA is theoretical. Strike three is something that happened on the field.
........................
3. The 2001 Seattle Mariners pitchers, as a group, struck out 6.46 men per nine innings; this gave them the #5 total in the league, #5 out of 14 teams. Four pitching staffs fanned more hitters; nine staffs fanned fewer. This is not league-average. It is not "below average." This is above average.
#5 in strikeouts is an important indication (one indication) that they were good. Good within the 60 feet, 6 inches we are talking about, not good because of anything Carlos Guillen was doing at shortstop.
.........................
4. The 2001 Mariners pitchers, as a group, walked a mere 2.86 men per game; this gave them the #3-best total in the league. Two pitching staffs walked more batters; 11 staffs walked more. This is not league-average. This is excellent pitching.
That 2.86 is not the walk rate for the relievers. This is the walk rate for all 14 pitchers used by Lou Piniella that season.
When a pitcher is walking very few batters, that does not suggest to the objective mind that he is a below average pitcher. It is an indication, one indication, that he is a good pitcher.
..........................
5. When a pitcher is good at BOTH striking out lots of hitters AND walking very few, it is very rare that he is an average pitcher, and these instances always occur when he gives up lots of home runs (he grooves the pitches on 3-1 so as to never walk anybody).
............................
6. The 2001 Mariners pitchers, as a group, gave up ranking #5th in the league. This means that the Mariners were good at ALL THREE "pure" pitching outcomes: strikeouts, walks, AND home runs.
...............................................
7. If it is possible for a pitcher to be above average at K's, BB's, and HR's, and yet be mediocre, I have no idea how that would work.
Do you think you could find a pitcher who was good at K's, good at BB's, and good at HR's, over a period of 1,465 innings -- and who was perfectly average?
Supposing you could. How many could I find who were not average?
What are the odds that the 2001 Seattle Mariners' pitchers were good at K's, good at BB's, good at preventing HR's, and yet were average? You guessed it. The odds approach zero.
The 2001 M's had three stars in the rotation, two solid guys, and one questionable guy. Then they had a mind-blowing bullpen. IMHO, those guys, the pitchers, were the biggest cause of the excellent ERA.
Cheers,
Dr D
........................
image: http://www.fhcrc.org/about/pubs/center_news/2004/jan22/Moyer_Jamie_pitch_vert.jpg
