Miscellaneous Sunday Ramblings
by chuckb on Sep 6, 2009 12:14 PM EDT
in St. Louis Cardinals News
Email
PrintBaseball Prospectus has this stat that they call secret sauce. It’s their supposed measurement of ability to succeed in the postseason. I think, by now, we all recognize that the postseason is basically a crapshoot. The people at BP have looked at all sorts of statistics to find their relationship to postseason success -- # of veterans, success down the stretch, # of homers hit, etc. They found that only 3 stats had a statistically significant relationship to postseason success – fielding runs above average (defensive ability), K/9 by the pitching staff, and WXRL (how good your closer is). Right now, according to big league teams, the Cards are 12th in the secret sauce report and 4th among possible NL playoff teams. We’re behind the Dodgers, Giants, and Rockies but way ahead of the Phillies. Brad Lidge is really weighing them down.
The problem I have w/ their numbers for the secret sauce report is that they use numbers for the entire pitching staff (K/9) over the entire season rather than trying to weigh them according to projected postseason usage. Brad Thompson doesn’t strike out anyone but if he’s pitching in postseason games we’re not going to win many games, and it isn’t b/c he doesn’t strike anyone out. They should try and weigh the numbers according to the fact that Chris Carpenter, Adam Wainwright, and Ryan Franklin will be pitching an inordinately high % of the innings. None of them are huge strike out pitchers but they still strike out more than Thompson and Kyle Lohse. In 2006, we were very low in the secret sauce report primarily b/c we were getting killed by WXRL. Izzy was horrendous that season but wasn’t even on the postseason roster. There was no accounting for the fact that Wainwright would be closing games. Would it have made a big difference in the report? Maybe not but my main argument is that they use what has been rather than what will be and that affects the validity of the report. Take it w/ a grain of salt.
I was curious about how tough our competition has been so far this season so I decided to look at the OPSes of NL starters’ opponents. It turns out that Wainwright has faced much tougher competition than either Carpenter or Pineiro so far this season. Out of 53 NL starters who’ve pitched 120 innings, Wainwright’s faced the 18th highest opponent OPS -- .731. That’s 11 points and 23 spots higher than Tim Lincecum, btw. Pineiro is 38th (.722) and Carp is 45th (.718) out of 53 in terms of the toughness of their competition. Jason Marquis, btw, is 50th so some of his good season can be attributed to the fact that he’s faced relatively weak competition.
As far as our hitters go, out of 124 NL hitters w/ 300+ PAs, Skip Schumaker has faced the 5th easiest pitchers, Colby Rasmus the 11th, and Albert Pujols the 14th, as measured by SLG against. Chris Duncan was 17th, Brendan Ryan the 48th, Ankiel the 52nd, and Yadi the 54th easiest pitchers. Somehow Ryan Ludwick has gotten screwed. He’s had to face the 78th easiest pitchers – much tougher competition than most of the lineup. We’ve faced some pretty light competition this season, a fact that shouldn’t be all that surprising considering there’s just 1 other team in our division above .500, and they’re barely above .500.
Finally, when Rasmus was picked off 1st base last night I got the idea to compare our baserunning this season (something BP measures relatively well, most agree) to previous seasons. There’s been a lot made of Joe Thurston’s baserunning escapades, for example. Right now we sit 12th baseball in overall baserunning. Our baserunning has added about 0.208 runs to our total so far this season. Oakland’s been the best in baseball, according to the report, adding more than 11 runs – and 1.1 wins – to their total by being good at running the bases this season. The worst has been the Orioles who have cost themselves more than 19 runs, and nearly 2 wins, on the bases. So our baserunning’s basically had a neutral effect on our win total this season.
Here are our totals since 2004.
| EQBRR | |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 0.209 |
| 2008 | -6.441 |
| 2007 | -11.478 |
| 2006 | -7.020 |
| 2005 | 7.608 |
| 2004 | 7.632 |
We were first in baseball in ’04 and 3rd in ’05 and this year’s the only season we’ve had a positive number since ’05. It’s also probably our 3rd best team (behind ’04 and ’05) over that time period. Interesting. Gotta get a game thread up soon. Early game. Late riser. Not a great combination!
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Looks like it.
Everybody’s still in church.
"I throw him four wide ones then try to pick him off first base." - Preacher Roe on Musial
Why are K's so much a part of every rankings system now?
I understand the whole “pitcher can only control 3 outcomes argument” but I still feel the K is overrated. What stats that value K’s a lot will tell you is that Rich Harden’s start yesterday of 5 innings with 10 K’s was better than WW performances when he went 7-8 innings with only 4-5 K’s. Personally, I would rather have the innings than the K’s because of the exposed middle relief aspect. I appreciate a guy who gets a lot of strikeouts, but I feel some of these advanced statistics rely to much on it.
Wainwright on 101.1 this morning
When asked what should determine Cy Young, he had to quote the old Bull Durham line, “Strikeouts are fascist”.
Also when asked about who he would/wouldn’t want to see in the playoffs, he initially tried dancing around the presumption of making the playoffs, then said “forget it, of course we’re going to make the playoffs, we’re up by 11 games in September”. or something like that.
I agree
The problem with high K guys is that IMO they also tend to be high pitch count guys and IMO tend to not go as deep into games.
That’s what the comp above shows and I’ve also seen it personally.
I think to a degree they are using the metrics that are there, because they are easily measurable, more than the things that really matter.
Well, I'm from Texas and my mama taught me to not piss all over myself.
Not necessarily
The quickest way to rack up a high pitch count is to throw balls and allow guys to get on base.
The idea of efficiency was examined by THT a few years back in a series of posts, and is accurately summed up by Sal Baxamusa’s quote:
There is no such creature as the efficient pitcher—only the effective one.
This is the article that has that exact quote. I’m not going to give all the particulars, but the conclusion is pretty difficult to argue with. Sure, if you have a guy who is uber-good at retiring hitters and always does it with a really weak GB on the 1st/2nd pitch or a K on the third, that’s great. But dismissing high K guys as uniformly inefficient is a silly conclusion.
VivaElBirdos: Celebrating glorious mustaches since 2009
by redbirdnation8206 on Sep 6, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
this is extremely misleading
it’s misleading to say that pitchers who get strikeouts are more likely to have high pitch counts earlier than “pitching to contact” pitchers. It’s simply false. As redbird below states, early, high pitch counts come from walking batters and allowing them to reach base. People always create this fictional dichotomy that “I’d rather have a guy who gets an out on 1 pitch than a strikeout” but that’s rarely the way it ends up. Pitch-to-contact pitchers give up more baserunners, and therefore longer innings and get into high pitch counts quicker than do strikeout pitchers.
That is the wrongest thing I have ever heard in my life.
Smoltz.
by vivaelpujols on Sep 6, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Really?
That’s the absolute wrongest? Aren’t you in the Fangraphs’ comment threads sometimes?
Future Redbirds - tracking Cardinal prospects for Cardinal Nation
17 of the top 25 ERA leaders are >7 K/9...two are less than 6
Missing bats is a valuable skill. Avoiding free runners is a valuable skill. Getting groundballs is a valuable skill. I’m not really sure where you’re getting that K’s are being valued more than anything else by the “advanced statistics”.
Not afraid to nitpick
what I know is
Bob Tewksbury never had a very good hits-to-innings ratio, but I would call him “efficient.” His strong suit, of course, was that he did not walk many batters.
I may be too strong of a pitch to contact advocate, but I know that in my playing days, then as a coach, and now as just a fan, I hated/hate it when my pitcher walks somebody.
It’s not only inefficient and dangerous, it’s boring.
lineup per stltoday
J. Lugo, 2B
B. Ryan, SS
A. Pujols, 1B
M. Holliday, LF
R. Ludwick, RF
T. Glaus, 3B
Y. Molina, C
C. Rasmus, CF
J. Pineiro, P
Glaus's shoulder is ok to play third?
Interesting
The bible declares an eye for an eye, so, let us now take our vengeance on this murderous ocean. . . You won't be hurting anyone anymore
by Buddhasillegitimatechild38 on Sep 6, 2009 1:03 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
K's are overrated
I understand everyone wants to see a strikeout, but I would much rather have a guy who can make batters get themselves out. Pineiro is a prime example plus by getting ground balls he keeps his pitch count down.
by Ahals15 on Sep 6, 2009 1:00 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
False!
As stated above a couple of times. False. As I said a few posts up, the ability to get outs on 1 pitch is overrated b/c it just doesn’t happen that often. If a batter puts the ball in play, he has a 35-40% chance of reaching base. If he strikes out, he has less than a 1% chance of reaching base. Baserunners inflates pitch counts, not strikeouts. 19 of the top 20 pitchers in baseball by ERA strike out more than 6 batters per 9 innings and all but 3 are above 6.5 K/9. Strikeout pitchers, ceteris paribus, are better b/c fair balls sometimes turn into hits and homers. Strikeouts do not.
bases empty k's are overrated, k's with men on are not
I'm going to anticipate Albert being walked if Babe Ruth is hitting behind him -Holliday
by slash2049 on Sep 6, 2009 1:11 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
repost ... A.D.A.M. confirms
per goold
Adam Wainwright joined the Hot Corner this morning and, when asked about what makes a great pitcher, quotes Crash: "Strikeouts are fascist."
I’ll be missin’ the game… ghostrider will no doubt pick up the slack.
"It was like two ankles." AVENGE BOOG
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear." - THT
I think Wainwright wins Cy Young
If he keeps racking up W’s. I know the voters love Lincecum for his K’s but you can’t overlook a huge differential in wins.
by Ahals15 on Sep 6, 2009 1:16 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Um, yes you can overlook a difference in wins
Lincecum pitches on a team with a terrible crew of hitters. If he “loses,” it’s very rarely his fault because he usually pitches brilliantly, which is all the pitcher is accountable for.
VivaElBirdos: Celebrating glorious mustaches since 2009
by redbirdnation8206 on Sep 6, 2009 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Traditionalist do over-value wins,
but SaBR guys undervalue ’em. Perhaps W-L records in close games would be a better way to evaluate a pitcher?
The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!
It would be
…if professional pitchers were also the cleanup hitters on their teams and could simultaneously play CF. W/L is determined by quality of team. Greinke is inarguably one of the top 3 pitchers in all of baseball and has fewer wins than Jason Marquis. Why? Marquis’s team is better. It makes sense also that his team would be better in close games, because their players are better. It’s not Greinke’s fault his team in close and late situations has to turn to Brayan Pena and Yuniesky Betancourt to get big hits, so he should not be punished for the inevitable failures of those mediocre players.
VivaElBirdos: Celebrating glorious mustaches since 2009
by redbirdnation8206 on Sep 6, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
W/L are determined by many more things than pitching
They’re determined by, you know, offense and defense and stuff like that. They’re determined by the bullpen. Exactly why should good starters be punished b/c his team’s hitters can’t hit or their bullpen can’t get anyone out. Tim Lincecum’s been, by nearly every objective measure except wins, the best pitcher in the NL this season. He should be denied the Cy Young b/c his team hasn’t gotten him the run support he needed or his bullpen blew a couple more games? I guess if he had more than 4 complete games, it wouldn’t be an issue. Of course, he leads the league in IP, so he’s more than doing his part. I do not value wins for starting pitchers. No question about it. I’ve seen no reason why I should and you failed to provide one here.
I agree
but I do like to look at it as the postseason approaches to see how well it predicts the outcome. As we know, nothing predicts very well so I consider more of a parlor trick. Even those at BP acknowledge that its correlation isn’t all that strong.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
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.
