One of the more controversial, but profound, insights of new analysis is that pitchers have relatively little control over whether batted balls that stay in the park are hits or outs. What we see as good pitching with our naked eyes is often a stew of defense and luck when put under the microscope. Pitchers may control whether batters swat flies or kill worms, but they don't control the placement of those batted balls three feet one way or the other, which is easily the difference between a hit and an out.
Generally, a pitcher can expect that batters hit around .300 on balls in play. The real distinction among pitchers is how often they fan batters, put them on base via walk or plunking and relinquish big flies.
It's not a hard-and-fast rule; sinkerballers endure higher BABIPs but induce more double plays and allow fewer home runs. Some individuals, bat-breakers in particular, maintain unusually low BABIPs over long periods. Knuckleballers confound the whole system, but are rare enough to hold their convention in an elevator.
So when reviewing pitcher seasons, a quick look at opponent BABIP can sometimes suggest a disconnect between performance and results. CC Sabathia's 2011 offers a snapshot.
Sabathia is reliably a beast, even when bitten by the BABIP bug. In 2011, he anchored the Yankee staff with a 19-8, 3.00 line in 237 innings. He whiffed 230 batters and walked just 61. Imagine this: things didn't go his way.
Sabathia for his career pitched to an opponent BABIP of .292, which makes sense for a fly ball pitcher like him. After 2300 innings, you have to figure the statistical kinks have been worked out so that's the true measure of his work. But in 2011, batters hit .322 on balls in play against him. A change in his pitching mix or something else could possibly be at issue, but it's far more likely that a few unlucky bounces and/or an aging defense are responsible.
Had Sabathia's luck held out for his "normal" BABIP, he would have given up 21 fewer hits. His ERA would have dropped 26 points. Let's say he'd have won an extra game and lost one less. Now he's 20-7, 2.74 and not the fourth best pitcher in the league, but the second or third.
Or first. Because your 2011 Cy Young and MVP, Justin Verlander, in addition to pitching with his hair on fire, was unbelievably lucky. His BABIP in 251 innings of labor was .237, nearly 100 points lower than Sabathia's and more than 50 points lower than his lifetime BABIP. A "normal" opponent BABIP for Verlander in 2011 means 39 more hits fall in, and his ERA balloons 54 points. Switch a couple of wins to losses and suddenly the runaway best pitcher in the league is 22-7, 2.94, a nearly identical record to Sabathia's.
(Jered Weaver, the #2 Cy Young votegetter, also enjoyed a skewed BABIP in 2011.)
An even deeper dive can tease out the discrepancies even further; there might be some explanation for a small part of Verlander's seemingly anomalous performance. It demonstrates, though, how much of the enthusiasm for Verlander as MVP might have been misplaced.
Ten years from now, the green eyeshades will have developed even finer tools for separating ability, defense and luck, and the conclusions we tentatively draw here might be reversed. Or vindicated. Still, the current state of the art reminds us that there's more to take into consideration than the usual pitching stats when analyzing pitcher value. It also suggests that Verlander, even maintaining his awesome level of performance, has little chance of repeating his 2011 results.
b
Generally, a pitcher can expect that batters hit around .300 on balls in play. The real distinction among pitchers is how often they fan batters, put them on base via walk or plunking and relinquish big flies.
It's not a hard-and-fast rule; sinkerballers endure higher BABIPs but induce more double plays and allow fewer home runs. Some individuals, bat-breakers in particular, maintain unusually low BABIPs over long periods. Knuckleballers confound the whole system, but are rare enough to hold their convention in an elevator.
So when reviewing pitcher seasons, a quick look at opponent BABIP can sometimes suggest a disconnect between performance and results. CC Sabathia's 2011 offers a snapshot.
Sabathia is reliably a beast, even when bitten by the BABIP bug. In 2011, he anchored the Yankee staff with a 19-8, 3.00 line in 237 innings. He whiffed 230 batters and walked just 61. Imagine this: things didn't go his way.
Sabathia for his career pitched to an opponent BABIP of .292, which makes sense for a fly ball pitcher like him. After 2300 innings, you have to figure the statistical kinks have been worked out so that's the true measure of his work. But in 2011, batters hit .322 on balls in play against him. A change in his pitching mix or something else could possibly be at issue, but it's far more likely that a few unlucky bounces and/or an aging defense are responsible.
Had Sabathia's luck held out for his "normal" BABIP, he would have given up 21 fewer hits. His ERA would have dropped 26 points. Let's say he'd have won an extra game and lost one less. Now he's 20-7, 2.74 and not the fourth best pitcher in the league, but the second or third.
Or first. Because your 2011 Cy Young and MVP, Justin Verlander, in addition to pitching with his hair on fire, was unbelievably lucky. His BABIP in 251 innings of labor was .237, nearly 100 points lower than Sabathia's and more than 50 points lower than his lifetime BABIP. A "normal" opponent BABIP for Verlander in 2011 means 39 more hits fall in, and his ERA balloons 54 points. Switch a couple of wins to losses and suddenly the runaway best pitcher in the league is 22-7, 2.94, a nearly identical record to Sabathia's.
(Jered Weaver, the #2 Cy Young votegetter, also enjoyed a skewed BABIP in 2011.)
An even deeper dive can tease out the discrepancies even further; there might be some explanation for a small part of Verlander's seemingly anomalous performance. It demonstrates, though, how much of the enthusiasm for Verlander as MVP might have been misplaced.
Ten years from now, the green eyeshades will have developed even finer tools for separating ability, defense and luck, and the conclusions we tentatively draw here might be reversed. Or vindicated. Still, the current state of the art reminds us that there's more to take into consideration than the usual pitching stats when analyzing pitcher value. It also suggests that Verlander, even maintaining his awesome level of performance, has little chance of repeating his 2011 results.
b
No comments:
Post a Comment